I have to confess I just flat-out do not understand all that stuff. E8? 248 dimensions? What?
* * *
Also it would seem that an economy such as the UK's could absorb an extra 1 million printed GBP without too much of a devaluation of the currency, I don't think anyone would notice - so her idea is probably sound, but not repeatable (much).
It could. What makes it more complex is that the amount it can absorb is not based on the number itself, but rather based on people's perception of the quantity of money. It's when we reach a point where people start sensing that more money is floating around that the inflation cycle starts. It's a very macro thing ... not a specific formula.
* * *
Then I was thinking, if you could attach a rigid steel rod from the Earth to The Moon and pushed the Earth end slightly towards The Moon, would The Moon end move immediately?
I understand what you're getting at here ... but let me fall into a pragmatic role here for a moment. If I have a lever with a rigid rod 1 meter long that pushed another lever, does the other lever truly move "immediately?" Or is there an imperceptible time lag as the force on one end results in molecular and atomic compression and the transfer of that energy through the bar to the other? Extend that out to 93M miles ... might the transference of energy travel along the bar at some rate perhaps slower than the speed of light?
I'm just wondering if your scenario is like our "assumed axioms" -- "assume a rigid steel bar that transfers energy immediately ..." Sure, if that were true, then the earth would "move" before the light reached it. But is our axiom true?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Order for 248 and 248 only
"What's attractive about studying E8 is that it's as complicated as symmetry can get",
This is a very sobering thought isn't it?
Symmetries are not infinite.
Therefore if matter is truly different ways of looking at the same thing, then there are not infinitely different types of matter (particle).
Perhaps the Universe is finite.
This makes me happy as I am scared of infinity :)
This is a very sobering thought isn't it?
Symmetries are not infinite.
Therefore if matter is truly different ways of looking at the same thing, then there are not infinitely different types of matter (particle).
Perhaps the Universe is finite.
This makes me happy as I am scared of infinity :)
Shapes
Somehow -- and I honestly don't know how to do this -- we need to come up with a way to show that the value of some commodity diminishes as the quantity of that commodity increases.
Yes this is what I am struggling with. Also it would seem that an economy such as the UK's could absorb an extra 1 million printed GBP without too much of a devaluation of the currency, I don't think anyone would notice - so her idea is probably sound, but not repeatable (much).
Or we could just let her be a little girl. :-)
Yes! She's gone off early to London this morning, part of her year (year 5) are visiting The National Gallery and The British Museum, I hope she has fun, she was very excited !
+++
It was a very clear dusk last night and The Moon was a tiny crescent, but one could see that The Moon was round due to prominent Earthshine, Katherine liked the idea that we were seeing the shape of The Moon through Sun light entering our eyes after it had already bounced off of The Earth, rather than directly bouncing off of The Moon. I got to thinking about a couple or three of things:
First, I was thinking more about your Moon Bomb idea; question - would the cable as it was reeling in due to the Earth's rotation, damage the Earth as it wrapped around? Possibly damaging other countries other than the intended target in the process? Or did I get the idea wrong?
Thirdly, I was wondering how different we would be as a race without these strange objects in the skies to look upon, they make us wonder and look for answers to their movements.
Secondly, and this takes longer thus the odd order, I was thinking about The Moon's progress around The Earth. The description Einstein came up with about 4D curved spacetime as an explanation is so beautiful, it made me think it must be correct. My intuition tells me this but I could be wrong, how can I know? I can't. Anyway I got to thinking that if spacetime can be curved then what exactly is "a vacuum"? If a vacuum is nothing then how can you curve it? So my conclusion was that spacetime must have a fabric and the vacuum of space is not simply "nothing".
Then I got to thinking about magnets. As a child I played with and was fascinated by magnets, but how do they work? So then I got to thinking about electromagnetic forces, and forces in general. Somehow these forces act across distances with seemingly nothing in between, but hang on, if a vacuum has a fabric then maybe they are acting on something in between the objects, perhaps the same something?
Then I was thinking, if you could attach a rigid steel rod from the Earth to The Moon and pushed the Earth end slightly towards The Moon, would The Moon end move immediately? Thus signaling the transfer of information in a way that was faster than light? Maybe The Moon is a bad example, take The Sun, put a rigid rod between The Earth and The Sun. Push the rod towards The Sun, does it move immediately at The Sun end thus negatating the fact that The Sun is 9 light minutes away?
Then I thought perhaps the whole concept of "immediately" or "time" was relative, but that's another discussion.
My thoughts were perhaps "forces" are propagated through waves travelling at the speed of light along the rods connecting particles. Maybe two "particles" represent the two ends of a rod. We can't see the rod but it's there and these rods can curve, so perhaps spacetime is made of rods?
Perhaps the pushing of the rod (rather than a wave travelling along it) is what is happening in quantum entaglement where you get what Einstein called "Spooky action at a distance", ie. do something here and something immediately happens over there.
Depending on how you look at rods depends on how you see them, symmetries of rods, but we can only see the ends. I think this big E8 number mathematicians just worked out might have something to do with it. What if there are really 248 dimensions rather than the 10 the M-brane theory has come up with? 248 is the Lie-group limit for some reason, not sure why.
Yes this is what I am struggling with. Also it would seem that an economy such as the UK's could absorb an extra 1 million printed GBP without too much of a devaluation of the currency, I don't think anyone would notice - so her idea is probably sound, but not repeatable (much).
Or we could just let her be a little girl. :-)
Yes! She's gone off early to London this morning, part of her year (year 5) are visiting The National Gallery and The British Museum, I hope she has fun, she was very excited !
+++
It was a very clear dusk last night and The Moon was a tiny crescent, but one could see that The Moon was round due to prominent Earthshine, Katherine liked the idea that we were seeing the shape of The Moon through Sun light entering our eyes after it had already bounced off of The Earth, rather than directly bouncing off of The Moon. I got to thinking about a couple or three of things:
First, I was thinking more about your Moon Bomb idea; question - would the cable as it was reeling in due to the Earth's rotation, damage the Earth as it wrapped around? Possibly damaging other countries other than the intended target in the process? Or did I get the idea wrong?
Thirdly, I was wondering how different we would be as a race without these strange objects in the skies to look upon, they make us wonder and look for answers to their movements.
Secondly, and this takes longer thus the odd order, I was thinking about The Moon's progress around The Earth. The description Einstein came up with about 4D curved spacetime as an explanation is so beautiful, it made me think it must be correct. My intuition tells me this but I could be wrong, how can I know? I can't. Anyway I got to thinking that if spacetime can be curved then what exactly is "a vacuum"? If a vacuum is nothing then how can you curve it? So my conclusion was that spacetime must have a fabric and the vacuum of space is not simply "nothing".
Then I got to thinking about magnets. As a child I played with and was fascinated by magnets, but how do they work? So then I got to thinking about electromagnetic forces, and forces in general. Somehow these forces act across distances with seemingly nothing in between, but hang on, if a vacuum has a fabric then maybe they are acting on something in between the objects, perhaps the same something?
Then I was thinking, if you could attach a rigid steel rod from the Earth to The Moon and pushed the Earth end slightly towards The Moon, would The Moon end move immediately? Thus signaling the transfer of information in a way that was faster than light? Maybe The Moon is a bad example, take The Sun, put a rigid rod between The Earth and The Sun. Push the rod towards The Sun, does it move immediately at The Sun end thus negatating the fact that The Sun is 9 light minutes away?
Then I thought perhaps the whole concept of "immediately" or "time" was relative, but that's another discussion.
My thoughts were perhaps "forces" are propagated through waves travelling at the speed of light along the rods connecting particles. Maybe two "particles" represent the two ends of a rod. We can't see the rod but it's there and these rods can curve, so perhaps spacetime is made of rods?
Perhaps the pushing of the rod (rather than a wave travelling along it) is what is happening in quantum entaglement where you get what Einstein called "Spooky action at a distance", ie. do something here and something immediately happens over there.
Depending on how you look at rods depends on how you see them, symmetries of rods, but we can only see the ends. I think this big E8 number mathematicians just worked out might have something to do with it. What if there are really 248 dimensions rather than the 10 the M-brane theory has come up with? 248 is the Lie-group limit for some reason, not sure why.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
I Got Satisfaction
Upon reflection, the CD analogy is actually flawed. The problem with it is that once a friend has traded for a particular CD, they'd have no need for another of the same thing. So if K had 1 more to trade or a 100 it wouldn't matter ... her friend would rightly say, "I don't want it, I have one. I won't trade you anything for it." That's an example of instant devaluation due to complete satisfaction of desire.
This is really hard ... another thought that came to mind was trying to "buy" from K something she really values, but using a scrap of paper. But that's too abstract ... she'll say "But that's just paper, while a pound note is real money!" The pound note is also just paper, but it carries value because we people agree to view it as valuable.
Somehow -- and I honestly don't know how to do this -- we need to come up with a way to show that the value of some commodity diminishes as the quantity of that commodity increases.
Or we could just let her be a little girl. :-)
This is really hard ... another thought that came to mind was trying to "buy" from K something she really values, but using a scrap of paper. But that's too abstract ... she'll say "But that's just paper, while a pound note is real money!" The pound note is also just paper, but it carries value because we people agree to view it as valuable.
Somehow -- and I honestly don't know how to do this -- we need to come up with a way to show that the value of some commodity diminishes as the quantity of that commodity increases.
Or we could just let her be a little girl. :-)
Supply and Demand
"Hey! I'm not going to trade 5-for-1 any more. You have so many of those I won't even trade 1-for-1 any more."
A good analogy/thought. So, I tell this to my daughter and follow up with: "So the African person with his newly printed money goes to the shop to buy some goods, but the shopkeeper says ...
a) The price has gone up, give me even more money
b) No I don't want your money at all, I can get money from someone else there is lots of it
c) Something else'
"?
The CD lesson might point to b) above. But would a) be the actual fact? If it is then she'll say, but the African person has a LOT of money now so he can afford to give as much money to the shopkeeper as is necessary. For an extra 1 million printed dollars (which must be negligible compared to the currency in circulation) I would say she would be right to think that.
Thanks for your ideas, teaching small ones is not easy!
A good analogy/thought. So, I tell this to my daughter and follow up with: "So the African person with his newly printed money goes to the shop to buy some goods, but the shopkeeper says ...
a) The price has gone up, give me even more money
b) No I don't want your money at all, I can get money from someone else there is lots of it
c) Something else'
"?
The CD lesson might point to b) above. But would a) be the actual fact? If it is then she'll say, but the African person has a LOT of money now so he can afford to give as much money to the shopkeeper as is necessary. For an extra 1 million printed dollars (which must be negligible compared to the currency in circulation) I would say she would be right to think that.
Thanks for your ideas, teaching small ones is not easy!
The Currency of Kids
but the problem is the one you already mentioned earlier - abstracting the value of goods/items to being represented by paper money that causes the difficulty I think.
I agree. Which is why introducing the concept of paper money is too difficult. Keeping the language in the currency of what kids use -- whatever that may be for an English girl -- is probably the key.
Here's one possible approach. Imagine K and her friends collected and traded music CD's. Let's say K had a popular new CD and her friends really wanted it. They wanted it so bad they would be willing to trade five of their other CDs for it.
Now imagine you fired up your CD burner and burned hundreds of copies of that CD. Would K's friends still be willing to trade at five CD's per one of the new CD? Or would the flood of copies of the CD drop the value? My guess is soon her friends would see K with all her copies of the new CD and say, "Hey! I'm not going to trade 5-for-1 any more. You have so many of those I won't even trade 1-for-1 any more."
Just a thought.
I agree. Which is why introducing the concept of paper money is too difficult. Keeping the language in the currency of what kids use -- whatever that may be for an English girl -- is probably the key.
Here's one possible approach. Imagine K and her friends collected and traded music CD's. Let's say K had a popular new CD and her friends really wanted it. They wanted it so bad they would be willing to trade five of their other CDs for it.
Now imagine you fired up your CD burner and burned hundreds of copies of that CD. Would K's friends still be willing to trade at five CD's per one of the new CD? Or would the flood of copies of the CD drop the value? My guess is soon her friends would see K with all her copies of the new CD and say, "Hey! I'm not going to trade 5-for-1 any more. You have so many of those I won't even trade 1-for-1 any more."
Just a thought.
Money Market
Bartering food in the way you describe it, yes the child can understand ... but the problem is the one you already mentioned earlier - abstracting the value of goods/items to being represented by paper money that causes the difficulty I think. If I can get over THAT hurdle I then have a chance to discuss the ramifications of printing more money.
Still to a child why not print 1 million dollars more - it's not going to change the economy is it? The quantity is too small. What would printing 1 millions dollars and giving it to poor people really do to the economy? I don't know, but it could make say 10 poor people in Africa have a good life. This is how the child sees it.
I may check out the book you referred to, my one concern with it is that it may be more relevant to US citizens than UK.
Still to a child why not print 1 million dollars more - it's not going to change the economy is it? The quantity is too small. What would printing 1 millions dollars and giving it to poor people really do to the economy? I don't know, but it could make say 10 poor people in Africa have a good life. This is how the child sees it.
I may check out the book you referred to, my one concern with it is that it may be more relevant to US citizens than UK.
Concept of Relative Value
I've been thinking a lot about the essence of economics. Sure, we can get buried really quickly in all sorts of minutia. What I'm thinking about are the essential core principles. And when I think about it, economics is all about the concept of relative value. By that I mean the value of one thing compared to another -- and that value changes over time, and it differs from person to person.
I recall when I was a kid in the school cafeteria. Without realizing what they were doing, the kids would engage in a spirited exchange market trading food items. From my experience, a dill pickle had very little value; a cupcake quite a bit. And then all sorts of interesting things would happen: if I was competing with someone else to acquire a cupcake in trade, no matter how many dill pickles I might have to trade, the sheer quantity of my dill pickles would never trump another kid's apple pie. So value is not a simple mathematical model. 100 pickles or 1000 pickles -- it makes no difference because pickles weren't valued relative to the cupcake. However, I might be able to trade a pickle for a bunch of carrot sticks. And it might be a 1-for-1 trade. So it's not like pickles have no value. It's all relative.
I was fortunate to not have much of a sweet tooth, so if I had a piece of cake or a cookie or whatever, I'd happily trade it away and get a lot more food in return. Others were so smitten by the sweets they'd trade their whole lunch for a Hostess coconut snowball cake. On the relatively rare occasion I'd buy a hot lunch (normally I brought a bagged lunch), I'd quickly establish interest in trading for my dessert, which I didn't really care for. I once traded my small piece of chocolate cake for someone else's lasagna and vegetables. Essentially their whole lunch. I was happy, they were happy. I was nourished. Them? Well, that wasn't my concern.
Note: and here's where the concept of currency (money) comes into play. As I said before, paper money (in particular) has no inherent value. Money serves as a proxy of actual value. I value my $1 bill because of what I can buy with that $1 bill. And that is based on trust that others will honor that $1 bill as an exchangeable representation of value. To trade my dill pickle for a cupcake using money requires an agreement on how many pickles per dollar, and then what fraction of a cupcake for a dollar. Once done, the dollar is nothing but a proxy, a representation of the relative value of the pickle vs. the cupcake.
It's a fascinating topic ... it really is. The dynamics are endless.
There's a "basic economics" text book written by Thomas Sowell that I've read really good things about. It's on Amazon here. I'm not saying you should get it ... but if you're thinking about delving into the topic some, it might be a good place to start.
I recall when I was a kid in the school cafeteria. Without realizing what they were doing, the kids would engage in a spirited exchange market trading food items. From my experience, a dill pickle had very little value; a cupcake quite a bit. And then all sorts of interesting things would happen: if I was competing with someone else to acquire a cupcake in trade, no matter how many dill pickles I might have to trade, the sheer quantity of my dill pickles would never trump another kid's apple pie. So value is not a simple mathematical model. 100 pickles or 1000 pickles -- it makes no difference because pickles weren't valued relative to the cupcake. However, I might be able to trade a pickle for a bunch of carrot sticks. And it might be a 1-for-1 trade. So it's not like pickles have no value. It's all relative.
I was fortunate to not have much of a sweet tooth, so if I had a piece of cake or a cookie or whatever, I'd happily trade it away and get a lot more food in return. Others were so smitten by the sweets they'd trade their whole lunch for a Hostess coconut snowball cake. On the relatively rare occasion I'd buy a hot lunch (normally I brought a bagged lunch), I'd quickly establish interest in trading for my dessert, which I didn't really care for. I once traded my small piece of chocolate cake for someone else's lasagna and vegetables. Essentially their whole lunch. I was happy, they were happy. I was nourished. Them? Well, that wasn't my concern.
Note: and here's where the concept of currency (money) comes into play. As I said before, paper money (in particular) has no inherent value. Money serves as a proxy of actual value. I value my $1 bill because of what I can buy with that $1 bill. And that is based on trust that others will honor that $1 bill as an exchangeable representation of value. To trade my dill pickle for a cupcake using money requires an agreement on how many pickles per dollar, and then what fraction of a cupcake for a dollar. Once done, the dollar is nothing but a proxy, a representation of the relative value of the pickle vs. the cupcake.
It's a fascinating topic ... it really is. The dynamics are endless.
There's a "basic economics" text book written by Thomas Sowell that I've read really good things about. It's on Amazon here. I'm not saying you should get it ... but if you're thinking about delving into the topic some, it might be a good place to start.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Teaching Economics
Ain't easy. There are some intuitive things that one either "gets" or does not. Your daughter does not yet "get" the concept of supply and demand. Well, she does, I think ... deep inside, but it's not yet taken hold in a tangible thought pattern. Does she do any trading with her friends at all -- in whatever currency little girls use -- CD's, doll clothes, whatever? If so, perhaps you can bridge the gap by tapping into her current understanding of "value" based on her own experiences. Paper money is just paper to her ... she probably doesn't understand that it's a mere representation of value, but not itself valuable. That itself is a slippery concept. Hence the question, "Why not print more?"
* * *
Does that mean they are not accountable to anyone? Here in the UK their are "watchdog" bodies that regulate the activities of politicians - do you not have something like that in the USA?
There are all sorts of independent watchdog groups. But ultimately it comes down to the Congress being accountable to itself, with a nod to the Supreme Court which has supremacy in matters of interpretation of the Constitution.
Years ago, back when the Clintons first assumed the office, there was a big row over Hillary Clinton's nationalization of the health care system here. She proposed a massive bureaucratic structure. It was "good for America" she said. But apparently not good enough for Congress, who made she they were exempted from it. The whole thing collapsed under its own weight, thankfully. We need certain reforms; we don't need that.
* * *
Blair seems happy to make millions for himself, his wife too. So clearly they are capitalists.
I'm not sure I see the connection between Blair's stifling imposition of government into the lives of the public, and their exploitation of their office to line their own pockets, with "capitalism." It sounds more like the classic Soviet model to me. :-)
* * *
The one factor that might make a manned mission worthwhile is the imagination of children that such a mission captures. Once sparked this can lead the children to grow up wanting to go into science, which is a benefit to everyone.
In principle I might agree. But I think that's a gamble. For one, the kids may not have their imaginations sparked. They're a jaded lot nowadays, as I'm sure you're aware. Two, that is based on the assumption of success, isn't it? What happens if the whole thing falls apart, either due to technical problems, or lack of sustained interest, or some catastrophic event?
I agree with the research into asteroid deflection. Now that stirs the imagination!
* * *
When I was a kid, aged 11-14 or so, I used to make little Airfix models of planes, you know glue them together, paint them, hang them from the ceiling etc. I must have made 75-100 planes in my time. The Concorde is probably the most iconic of passenger jets I think. And the Spitfire is the most beautiful plane I ever saw, still is.
I had a few of those things, but not many. I recall having a P-38 Lightning and a P-51 Mustang, as well as the gorgeous Spitfire. I agree wholeheartedly that the design of the Spitfire was classic. And yes, the Concorde was definitely an iconic figure for our age group. I saw that fly over Raleigh, NC back in the mid-80's. Pretty much the whole city stopped work to go outside and watch it go over. :-)
* * *
Does that mean they are not accountable to anyone? Here in the UK their are "watchdog" bodies that regulate the activities of politicians - do you not have something like that in the USA?
There are all sorts of independent watchdog groups. But ultimately it comes down to the Congress being accountable to itself, with a nod to the Supreme Court which has supremacy in matters of interpretation of the Constitution.
Years ago, back when the Clintons first assumed the office, there was a big row over Hillary Clinton's nationalization of the health care system here. She proposed a massive bureaucratic structure. It was "good for America" she said. But apparently not good enough for Congress, who made she they were exempted from it. The whole thing collapsed under its own weight, thankfully. We need certain reforms; we don't need that.
* * *
Blair seems happy to make millions for himself, his wife too. So clearly they are capitalists.
I'm not sure I see the connection between Blair's stifling imposition of government into the lives of the public, and their exploitation of their office to line their own pockets, with "capitalism." It sounds more like the classic Soviet model to me. :-)
* * *
The one factor that might make a manned mission worthwhile is the imagination of children that such a mission captures. Once sparked this can lead the children to grow up wanting to go into science, which is a benefit to everyone.
In principle I might agree. But I think that's a gamble. For one, the kids may not have their imaginations sparked. They're a jaded lot nowadays, as I'm sure you're aware. Two, that is based on the assumption of success, isn't it? What happens if the whole thing falls apart, either due to technical problems, or lack of sustained interest, or some catastrophic event?
I agree with the research into asteroid deflection. Now that stirs the imagination!
* * *
When I was a kid, aged 11-14 or so, I used to make little Airfix models of planes, you know glue them together, paint them, hang them from the ceiling etc. I must have made 75-100 planes in my time. The Concorde is probably the most iconic of passenger jets I think. And the Spitfire is the most beautiful plane I ever saw, still is.
I had a few of those things, but not many. I recall having a P-38 Lightning and a P-51 Mustang, as well as the gorgeous Spitfire. I agree wholeheartedly that the design of the Spitfire was classic. And yes, the Concorde was definitely an iconic figure for our age group. I saw that fly over Raleigh, NC back in the mid-80's. Pretty much the whole city stopped work to go outside and watch it go over. :-)
Supermarine
When I think of "capitalism," a better phrase for it would be "resource allocation based on free market mechanics." Contrast that with "resource allocation based on the decisions of a ruling elite,"
I am woefully ignorant of this area of human endeavour. My daugher asked me yesterday why can't we just print a ton of money and send it to the poor people in Africa so they could buy houses, cookers and showers ?! (sic)
I told her about rampant inflation in pre-2nd World War Germany and even showed her some pictures from Google Images of ladies shopping with full barrow loads of bank notes and burning them in their fires because that was a cheaper way of keeping warm than buying wood.
So she asked me the same question again.
Then I started on about "supply and demand" and that people only wanted things that were hard to come by and if you printed more money it would just make people want it less.
She asked me to explain it to her in a way that she could understand. And I couldn't. I completely failed in this, I can explain mathematics and science to her in a way that she understands, she says "I wish our lessons were like that!" but I cannot explain basic economics to her. Which means a couple of things at least 1) I do not understand basic economics and 2) It's almost impossible to teach something you have been unable to create any enthusiam within yourself for and possibly ... 3) the best teachers have a passion for whatever is they are teaching; from this passion comes the desire to articulate the subject in a way that the recipient can "get".
On well I must try harder, I have a responsibility to educate my daughter to the best of my abilities whilst she is here with me.
Here in America our illustrious Congress has exempted themselves from darn near every law they impose upon us.
Does that mean they are not accountable to anyone? Here in the UK their are "watchdog" bodies that regulate the activities of politicians - do you not have something like that in the USA?
The UK Blair government has made it their business to stick their noses in lots of places that aren't welcome, every street corner seems to have a camera watching (ala 1984) and The Courts interfere in family life where they are not welcome - with the blessing of the government. Blair seems happy to make millions for himself, his wife too. So clearly they are capitalists. I'm not sure if they want to exempt themselves from any laws though.
+++
Manned Mission to Mars? Not sure. I think I'd rather see the money spent on an observation/defence program to scan the skies for the wormwood and work out ways to deflect it. I agree with robotic missions to the planets for sure, I don't think you're way off base. The one factor that might make a manned mission worthwhile is the imagination of children that such a mission captures. Once sparked this can lead the children to grow up wanting to go into science, which is a benefit to everyone.
+++
Yes the 747 is iconic. I think I read somewhere that it was first designed to haul goods rather than people. The new airbus will get lots of use in China and India as those economies come on line and Japan of course. One day the Chinese economy may even be bigger than that of the US. It's funny, K said to me about a month ago "How come everything is made in China?" Hehe.
When I was a kid, aged 11-14 or so, I used to make little Airfix models of planes, you know glue them together, paint them, hang them from the ceiling etc. I must have made 75-100 planes in my time. The Concorde is probably the most iconic of passenger jets I think. And the Spitfire is the most beautiful plane I ever saw, still is.
I am woefully ignorant of this area of human endeavour. My daugher asked me yesterday why can't we just print a ton of money and send it to the poor people in Africa so they could buy houses, cookers and showers ?! (sic)
I told her about rampant inflation in pre-2nd World War Germany and even showed her some pictures from Google Images of ladies shopping with full barrow loads of bank notes and burning them in their fires because that was a cheaper way of keeping warm than buying wood.
So she asked me the same question again.
Then I started on about "supply and demand" and that people only wanted things that were hard to come by and if you printed more money it would just make people want it less.
She asked me to explain it to her in a way that she could understand. And I couldn't. I completely failed in this, I can explain mathematics and science to her in a way that she understands, she says "I wish our lessons were like that!" but I cannot explain basic economics to her. Which means a couple of things at least 1) I do not understand basic economics and 2) It's almost impossible to teach something you have been unable to create any enthusiam within yourself for and possibly ... 3) the best teachers have a passion for whatever is they are teaching; from this passion comes the desire to articulate the subject in a way that the recipient can "get".
On well I must try harder, I have a responsibility to educate my daughter to the best of my abilities whilst she is here with me.
Here in America our illustrious Congress has exempted themselves from darn near every law they impose upon us.
Does that mean they are not accountable to anyone? Here in the UK their are "watchdog" bodies that regulate the activities of politicians - do you not have something like that in the USA?
The UK Blair government has made it their business to stick their noses in lots of places that aren't welcome, every street corner seems to have a camera watching (ala 1984) and The Courts interfere in family life where they are not welcome - with the blessing of the government. Blair seems happy to make millions for himself, his wife too. So clearly they are capitalists. I'm not sure if they want to exempt themselves from any laws though.
+++
Manned Mission to Mars? Not sure. I think I'd rather see the money spent on an observation/defence program to scan the skies for the wormwood and work out ways to deflect it. I agree with robotic missions to the planets for sure, I don't think you're way off base. The one factor that might make a manned mission worthwhile is the imagination of children that such a mission captures. Once sparked this can lead the children to grow up wanting to go into science, which is a benefit to everyone.
+++
Yes the 747 is iconic. I think I read somewhere that it was first designed to haul goods rather than people. The new airbus will get lots of use in China and India as those economies come on line and Japan of course. One day the Chinese economy may even be bigger than that of the US. It's funny, K said to me about a month ago "How come everything is made in China?" Hehe.
When I was a kid, aged 11-14 or so, I used to make little Airfix models of planes, you know glue them together, paint them, hang them from the ceiling etc. I must have made 75-100 planes in my time. The Concorde is probably the most iconic of passenger jets I think. And the Spitfire is the most beautiful plane I ever saw, still is.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Airbus A380
Is there a big enough market for this to pay back on the investment?
I recall a lecture way back in college -- in my transportation classes -- and we were talking about the prospects of a super-jumbo plane ... bigger than the 747 which defined big back then. The professor expressed skepticism ... his point was that the bigger the plane, the more effort it took to collect the "payload." Meaning ... except for high-volume trunk routes, getting 500+ people together to go somewhere ain't easy.
Boeing is betting their corporation on the opposite model -- smaller planes that can more efficiently spirit fewer people to lots of different locations. I guess the objectives of their design was much better fuel efficiency per passenger mile delivered.
Did you know that the 747 was originally designed to be a freight carrier? The notion of carrying people was an afterthought. The bubble cockpit was so the nose could hinge up and expose the main tube of the plane to cargo loading.
Is there any more iconic plane profile in all the world than the 747?
Mission to Mars?
There's been some talk here in the States about the role and mission of NASA. Some feel the agency needs a new mission ... a bold one ... a manned trip to Mars.
I completely disagree. I don't believe the public really cares all that much for such a mission. Nobody really believes we'll establish a "colony" there, any more than we've been successful establishing a viable orbiting space station. Going there would just be an exercise in saying we did it, but little more.
Second, I think most people view the trials and troubles of this earth and think, "We don't need to spend the time and money on that. We have more important things to worry about already."
Finally, I think in the back of most people's minds is the notion of a spacecraft with astronauts in it being disabled far out in space with no chance for rescue. It's one thing for a shuttle to blow up -- that's a death everyone can grasp. But simply drifting off into nothingness would leave an odd and disturbing chill in people's minds. They sense that now, I think. Plus, the feeling of utter helplessness would leave quite a scar. All the more reason, I think, that a mission to Mars is just talk.
Unmanned probes and such? Cool ... the more the merrier.
Thoughts? Am I just way off base here?
I completely disagree. I don't believe the public really cares all that much for such a mission. Nobody really believes we'll establish a "colony" there, any more than we've been successful establishing a viable orbiting space station. Going there would just be an exercise in saying we did it, but little more.
Second, I think most people view the trials and troubles of this earth and think, "We don't need to spend the time and money on that. We have more important things to worry about already."
Finally, I think in the back of most people's minds is the notion of a spacecraft with astronauts in it being disabled far out in space with no chance for rescue. It's one thing for a shuttle to blow up -- that's a death everyone can grasp. But simply drifting off into nothingness would leave an odd and disturbing chill in people's minds. They sense that now, I think. Plus, the feeling of utter helplessness would leave quite a scar. All the more reason, I think, that a mission to Mars is just talk.
Unmanned probes and such? Cool ... the more the merrier.
Thoughts? Am I just way off base here?
Chatting Up
Uh oh ... that's embarrassing. I used the phrase rather unconsciously. I had you in mind as I typed it, and I knew you had a phrase in that neighborhood ... chatting, chatting with, chatting up.
I wonder if my subconscious is trying to tell me something? :-)
I wonder if my subconscious is trying to tell me something? :-)
Capitalism
I am surprised to see you call it a socialist ideal though ("imposed socialism"), this is normally the capitalist way - exploiting your advantages over your fellow is more a "right wing" than "left wing" activity in my opinion, but I could be wrong.
I had a big long post -- full of my own hot air -- and upon reflection it was stupid. So I deleted it.
When I think of "capitalism," a better phrase for it would be "resource allocation based on free market mechanics." Contrast that with "resource allocation based on the decisions of a ruling elite," which is what I would characterize "socialism" as. Neither is perfect, but I believe history has shown that free market mechanics produce greater wealth than controlled mechanics.
The thing about free market economies is that sometimes there are painful periods of transition. Right now the market does not value low-skilled assembly workers. Hence there are a lot of people in the U.S. (and probably the UK) who previously held assembly line work who no longer do. We have nobody to blame but ourselves -- we, the consumers, allocated resources freely. We took our money to Wal-Mart.
I also believe that a free market economy can be subject to abuse. So I agree with some degree of regulation. But I think the defining difference is this: free market proponents start from a position of no regulation and grudgingly move to some regulation; socialist proponents start from a position of complete regulation and grudgingly move to some free market practices.
I have expressed my disdain for the ruling elite because they are utter hypocrites. They violate the "treat others" rule in near everything they do. Notice how I did not say "socialists" there ... I said "ruling elite." Here in America our illustrious Congress has exempted themselves from darn near every law they impose upon us. The difference between them and a socialist regime such as the Soviet Union had was that every two years we can do something about it. In 2006 this country did just that.
I had a big long post -- full of my own hot air -- and upon reflection it was stupid. So I deleted it.
When I think of "capitalism," a better phrase for it would be "resource allocation based on free market mechanics." Contrast that with "resource allocation based on the decisions of a ruling elite," which is what I would characterize "socialism" as. Neither is perfect, but I believe history has shown that free market mechanics produce greater wealth than controlled mechanics.
The thing about free market economies is that sometimes there are painful periods of transition. Right now the market does not value low-skilled assembly workers. Hence there are a lot of people in the U.S. (and probably the UK) who previously held assembly line work who no longer do. We have nobody to blame but ourselves -- we, the consumers, allocated resources freely. We took our money to Wal-Mart.
I also believe that a free market economy can be subject to abuse. So I agree with some degree of regulation. But I think the defining difference is this: free market proponents start from a position of no regulation and grudgingly move to some regulation; socialist proponents start from a position of complete regulation and grudgingly move to some free market practices.
I have expressed my disdain for the ruling elite because they are utter hypocrites. They violate the "treat others" rule in near everything they do. Notice how I did not say "socialists" there ... I said "ruling elite." Here in America our illustrious Congress has exempted themselves from darn near every law they impose upon us. The difference between them and a socialist regime such as the Soviet Union had was that every two years we can do something about it. In 2006 this country did just that.
Snobbery (Goldwingers not waving originally)
This estimate of the CO2 output of Mt St Helens:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html
claims approx 900 million tons, lets say a billion, or 5 to 10 times all of the Earth's volcanic CO2 contributions in one year, or 1/10th of the human production in one year.
This kind of makes sense - using basic laws of chemistry/physics (Boyle's Law) and considering just how many volcanoes there are on Earth, it's unlikely that a single volcano could outstrip the CO2 production of all of the Earth's volcanoes in a single year by thousands of times - which it would need to do to beat the efforts of humanity since we began.
+++
Mark my words -- if and when this thing takes root at the policy level, what you'll see in the fine print will be all sorts of exemptions for individuals and organizations who craft the policy.
I agree that this will happen for sure. It's back to human nature, the idea to gain a competitive advantage. I am surprised to see you call it a socialist ideal though ("imposed socialism"), this is normally the capitalist way - exploiting your advantages over your fellow is more a "right wing" than "left wing" activity in my opinion, but I could be wrong. I'm thinking along the lines that the rich only get through exploiting the less rich. I think that's how economies work anyway.
+++
My point earlier was that believing in something non-falsifiable (whatever the object or thing is) is identical to having a closed mind on the subject. I wasn't suggesting there was anything inherently bad about having a closed mind on the subject.
+++
Being inconsistent may be like breaking a promise also, "I said I would do A but then I go and do B". It's about intentions again isn't it? We can have the best will in the world to be consistent/logical and then fail to be so.
+++
The biking fraternity sounds dandy in the US, do you have lady bikers also?
I also enjoy the camaraderie of chatting up other bikers at gas stations
"Chatting up" at the gas station means a person with hopes of trying to get amorous with the other in the UK by the way ! For your example we brits would say "chatting to". Be careful, you know what those leather-clad bikers are like :)
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html
claims approx 900 million tons, lets say a billion, or 5 to 10 times all of the Earth's volcanic CO2 contributions in one year, or 1/10th of the human production in one year.
This kind of makes sense - using basic laws of chemistry/physics (Boyle's Law) and considering just how many volcanoes there are on Earth, it's unlikely that a single volcano could outstrip the CO2 production of all of the Earth's volcanoes in a single year by thousands of times - which it would need to do to beat the efforts of humanity since we began.
+++
Mark my words -- if and when this thing takes root at the policy level, what you'll see in the fine print will be all sorts of exemptions for individuals and organizations who craft the policy.
I agree that this will happen for sure. It's back to human nature, the idea to gain a competitive advantage. I am surprised to see you call it a socialist ideal though ("imposed socialism"), this is normally the capitalist way - exploiting your advantages over your fellow is more a "right wing" than "left wing" activity in my opinion, but I could be wrong. I'm thinking along the lines that the rich only get through exploiting the less rich. I think that's how economies work anyway.
+++
My point earlier was that believing in something non-falsifiable (whatever the object or thing is) is identical to having a closed mind on the subject. I wasn't suggesting there was anything inherently bad about having a closed mind on the subject.
+++
Being inconsistent may be like breaking a promise also, "I said I would do A but then I go and do B". It's about intentions again isn't it? We can have the best will in the world to be consistent/logical and then fail to be so.
+++
The biking fraternity sounds dandy in the US, do you have lady bikers also?
I also enjoy the camaraderie of chatting up other bikers at gas stations
"Chatting up" at the gas station means a person with hopes of trying to get amorous with the other in the UK by the way ! For your example we brits would say "chatting to". Be careful, you know what those leather-clad bikers are like :)
Kaboom!
Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year.
It may be that what I read was in fact a piece of misinformation ... I really don't know. But I'll say this -- I'm just a little skeptical of the information you posted. Not that it is wrong, but that it's not addressing my initial point. Volcanoes might well product 1100 million tons/year, but I'm not talking about annual production ... I'm talking about extraordinary production, created by an extraordinary event like the eruption of St. Helens (1980) or Pinatuba (1991) the expected output from the "Yellowstone Caldera" (which went off 600K years ago and is, I understand, a bit overdue ... yikes!). The articles you referenced didn't seem to say whether the annual figures accounted for extraordinary events, or were true annual output figures. If it did, I didn't see it.
* * *
I have no axe to grind either way, I'm just looking for the truth.
I'll take it one step further -- truth and reasonable policy decisions that flow from that truth. Right now I don't believe we have either. I believe with all my heart that this "climate change" thing is being used as a trojan horse for imposed socialism. Mark my words -- if and when this thing takes root at the policy level, what you'll see in the fine print will be all sorts of exemptions for individuals and organizations who craft the policy. They'll impose travel taxes on tourists to curb "unnecessary flying" but they'll exempt themselves for their "fact finding missions."
Watch also how they'll look to shift most of the burden on the United States. Kyoto already tries to do that -- China and India, two of the most polluting countries in the world and getting worse each year (I was in Beijing; I experienced first hand the awful quality of their air), were exempted. Why?
People say, "The U.S. represents 5% of the people but consumes 25% of the energy." That may be true enough. We also produce a comparable share of the world's GDP, and that is what fuels the quality of life elsewhere. You want to see death on a scale far larger than any "global warming" will produce any time soon? Hobble the U.S. economy to the tune of 20% or more (which is roughly what compliance with the strictest interpretations of Kyoto would have called for). That would drag down the rest of the world. Suddenly farmers in Africa would have nobody to sell their coffee to; no more supplemental food shipments to Africa and other poor countries; no more massive subsidization of drug and relief efforts overseas.
That's my axe to grind.
Look ... there's no question that many in the United States are ostentatious. Yes, we live a big lifestyle. I don't think I do all that much, but I'll grant many do. But I think these fools (and yes, I use that word with intent) who craft worldwide global bureaucratic policy want it both ways. They want to hobble the U.S. out of envy, yet they want to milk the U.S. wealth for all its worth. All the while, of course, while they craft exemptions from their own rules so the ruling elite can live in luxury while others carry the burden.
I truly, truly hate those people.
It may be that what I read was in fact a piece of misinformation ... I really don't know. But I'll say this -- I'm just a little skeptical of the information you posted. Not that it is wrong, but that it's not addressing my initial point. Volcanoes might well product 1100 million tons/year, but I'm not talking about annual production ... I'm talking about extraordinary production, created by an extraordinary event like the eruption of St. Helens (1980) or Pinatuba (1991) the expected output from the "Yellowstone Caldera" (which went off 600K years ago and is, I understand, a bit overdue ... yikes!). The articles you referenced didn't seem to say whether the annual figures accounted for extraordinary events, or were true annual output figures. If it did, I didn't see it.
* * *
I have no axe to grind either way, I'm just looking for the truth.
I'll take it one step further -- truth and reasonable policy decisions that flow from that truth. Right now I don't believe we have either. I believe with all my heart that this "climate change" thing is being used as a trojan horse for imposed socialism. Mark my words -- if and when this thing takes root at the policy level, what you'll see in the fine print will be all sorts of exemptions for individuals and organizations who craft the policy. They'll impose travel taxes on tourists to curb "unnecessary flying" but they'll exempt themselves for their "fact finding missions."
Watch also how they'll look to shift most of the burden on the United States. Kyoto already tries to do that -- China and India, two of the most polluting countries in the world and getting worse each year (I was in Beijing; I experienced first hand the awful quality of their air), were exempted. Why?
People say, "The U.S. represents 5% of the people but consumes 25% of the energy." That may be true enough. We also produce a comparable share of the world's GDP, and that is what fuels the quality of life elsewhere. You want to see death on a scale far larger than any "global warming" will produce any time soon? Hobble the U.S. economy to the tune of 20% or more (which is roughly what compliance with the strictest interpretations of Kyoto would have called for). That would drag down the rest of the world. Suddenly farmers in Africa would have nobody to sell their coffee to; no more supplemental food shipments to Africa and other poor countries; no more massive subsidization of drug and relief efforts overseas.
That's my axe to grind.
Look ... there's no question that many in the United States are ostentatious. Yes, we live a big lifestyle. I don't think I do all that much, but I'll grant many do. But I think these fools (and yes, I use that word with intent) who craft worldwide global bureaucratic policy want it both ways. They want to hobble the U.S. out of envy, yet they want to milk the U.S. wealth for all its worth. All the while, of course, while they craft exemptions from their own rules so the ruling elite can live in luxury while others carry the burden.
I truly, truly hate those people.
Volcanic Discharges
Fair enough. I forget where I read this ... somewhere ... that when Mt. St. Helens erupted it spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere in one day than all of mankind did in the last 100 years. I don't know if that's strictly true, but it would not surprise me.
I don't think thats true. I wouldn't know whether to be surprised or not though, where do you get the knowledge to be not surprised from? :)
INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:
Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced
Source: http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
This appears to be backed up by the Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.
And it's pretty easy to get the human CO2 emissions estimate from a number of places.
I have no axe to grind either way, I'm just looking for the truth. Like I said, I believe that it's too early to say whether human CO2 emissions have caused the climate change we are experiencing, they may have a neglible or zero effect for all I know. But I don't think the Mt. St Helens thing is correct. I guess it could be used by others who have come to the conclusion that it's NOT human emissions causing Global Warming to write it on the web somewhere to further their agenda, whatever that might be. I still say we have to investigate all claims though.
I will respond on your other points later .. I'm off to pick up my daughter now!
I don't think thats true. I wouldn't know whether to be surprised or not though, where do you get the knowledge to be not surprised from? :)
INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:
Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced
Source: http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
This appears to be backed up by the Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.
And it's pretty easy to get the human CO2 emissions estimate from a number of places.
I have no axe to grind either way, I'm just looking for the truth. Like I said, I believe that it's too early to say whether human CO2 emissions have caused the climate change we are experiencing, they may have a neglible or zero effect for all I know. But I don't think the Mt. St Helens thing is correct. I guess it could be used by others who have come to the conclusion that it's NOT human emissions causing Global Warming to write it on the web somewhere to further their agenda, whatever that might be. I still say we have to investigate all claims though.
I will respond on your other points later .. I'm off to pick up my daughter now!
Brotherhood of Riders
Yes ... here in the United States the act of extending the left hand in a gesture of greeting is quite common. And the horizontal two fingers is one gesture; an open palm another; just the index finger extended a third. I do it all the time ... it's fun. I also enjoy the camaraderie of chatting up other bikers at gas stations. People are really eager to talk about their bikes. All it takes is a few open-ended questions from me and off they go. :-)
What's interesting about the hand thing is who does not do it ... and when. When I had my Honda Shadow V-Twin, I noticed a lot of Goldwingers wouldn't acknowledge me. Now that I have a Wing, they acknowledge me. I don't find that kind of exclusivity very attractive. Harley riders will frequently gesture, even to me on my Wing. As a class, I've found Harley riders to be quite friendly, both in gesturing and chatting at gas stations. As a class, I've found sport bike riders to be the least communicative.
While I enjoy the casual social interaction of bikers, I'm not really into the "brotherhood of bikers" thing. We just happen to be people who own motorcycles. My motorcycle does not define me, nor does our common bond of a motorcycle open up some special line of communication that wasn't there before. Convenient line of communication, yes; special, no.
* * *
Question: is believing something to be non-falsifiable synonymous with having a closed mind about that particular topic?
I think by definition nothing should be considered non-falsifiable. But, that said, I think there are things a person may choose to consider non-falsifiable simply to avoid engaging in the discussions and debates. Two examples:
* * *
Let's stick with the facts, the first being "we have altered the composition of the Earth's atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels". The debate should be around understanding what this alteration means to the Earth's climate, if anything, both now and in the future."
Fair enough. I forget where I read this ... somewhere ... that when Mt. St. Helens erupted it spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere in one day than all of mankind did in the last 100 years. I don't know if that's strictly true, but it would not surprise me.
* * *
The law of unintended consequences -- with the recent emphasis on ethanol as a replacement for fossil fuels, the profit margin on corn production has gone way up. That has resulted in two things, both not good:
What's interesting about the hand thing is who does not do it ... and when. When I had my Honda Shadow V-Twin, I noticed a lot of Goldwingers wouldn't acknowledge me. Now that I have a Wing, they acknowledge me. I don't find that kind of exclusivity very attractive. Harley riders will frequently gesture, even to me on my Wing. As a class, I've found Harley riders to be quite friendly, both in gesturing and chatting at gas stations. As a class, I've found sport bike riders to be the least communicative.
While I enjoy the casual social interaction of bikers, I'm not really into the "brotherhood of bikers" thing. We just happen to be people who own motorcycles. My motorcycle does not define me, nor does our common bond of a motorcycle open up some special line of communication that wasn't there before. Convenient line of communication, yes; special, no.
* * *
Question: is believing something to be non-falsifiable synonymous with having a closed mind about that particular topic?
I think by definition nothing should be considered non-falsifiable. But, that said, I think there are things a person may choose to consider non-falsifiable simply to avoid engaging in the discussions and debates. Two examples:
- My commitment to my wife is not non-falsifiable. I am perfectly capable of violating the covenant of our marriage. A discussion of the topic would reveal such breaches in my thinking at the least; in my actions quite possibly (excepting physical contact). But that doesn't mean I relish the opportunity to discuss the topic, or dwell on things I'm doing in violation of our marriage covenant. I don't wish to explore how falsifiable my claims of commitment are. I'd rather privately focus on being true and taking my infractions to the Lord, not others.
- Questions of faith ... same logic here: probing the potential for falsification for me is a detrimental process. That's not to say that it's not worthwhile for others who have the capacity for it. But for me, it's counter-productive. So I choose to hold the Bible as inerrant, though rationally I understand that reasonable discussions of the validity of composition and content may take place.
* * *
Let's stick with the facts, the first being "we have altered the composition of the Earth's atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels". The debate should be around understanding what this alteration means to the Earth's climate, if anything, both now and in the future."
Fair enough. I forget where I read this ... somewhere ... that when Mt. St. Helens erupted it spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere in one day than all of mankind did in the last 100 years. I don't know if that's strictly true, but it would not surprise me.
* * *
The law of unintended consequences -- with the recent emphasis on ethanol as a replacement for fossil fuels, the profit margin on corn production has gone way up. That has resulted in two things, both not good:
- Corn prices have sky-rocketed, making a basic staple increasingly difficult to acquire for people of very limited means
- Much more land is going into corn production, including rain forests which are being razed to make room to grow corn for ethanol production.
Mexico
Hey I didn't realize that Tucson was so near to the border with Mexico ... and it looks like the town of Douglas is half in the USA and half in Mexico .. not quite Istanbul I know but still a surprise to me, I think there is an air force base around there somewhere. Another good long ride pal, you can see it's significant on Google Earth, of which there is an upgrade now - well I installed the Google Pack thing and an updated Google Earth appeared.
Yeah I don't go for those low-rider type bikes much either. Still, meeting folks on the road, it would seem that everywhere in the world bikers are a strong community, I often thought this may be due to them (you!) having a common enemy ie."the car". When two bikers pass in France they stick two fingers out at eachother - not the V for victory Churchill sign, but two fingers held out horizontally. Do they do that is the USA? I love that about riding in France, impossible to do in the UK as it would mean taking your hand of the accelerator, it can only happen where you drive on the "right hand side" of the road. When I first drove in France I thought "What are all these people doing?" Then I got to really like it, it's like reaching out to touch one-another. We are community beings us humans, we like to form groups, I am convinced the behaviour is innate. It's self evident how this behaviour would have had bred in a species borne of natural selection too.
+++
A while ago now I replied to a UK friend who aksed me my views on Global Warming:
"I don't know whether the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, and we have contributed a lot since the industrial revolution, is causing global warming or not. More research is necessary. The trouble with the whole global warming issue is that it's deemed to be a liberal/democrat flag waving banner, so everyone with a conservative/republican bent is just looking to say it's hogwash. In addition - everywhere it seems now - minority groups have far too much power, political correctness has gone mad, and "global warming" is lumped together with these "leftists". So the debate over global warming has come down to left vs right (as usual), with a bunch of "scientists" thrown in competing for grant money.
Let's stick with the facts, the first being "we have altered the composition of the Earth's atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels". The debate should be around understanding what this alteration means to the Earth's climate, if anything, both now and in the future."
+++
My view is, if you are a scientist then you cannot hold to the non-falsifiable concept that Global Warming is all the result of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere due to the activities of humanity. You cannot hold to the non-falsifiability of anything. You have to keep an open mind about everything.
Question: is believing something to be non-falsifiable synonymous with having a closed mind about that particular topic?
+++
And, "is being inconsistent like breaking a promise?" ...
Yeah I don't go for those low-rider type bikes much either. Still, meeting folks on the road, it would seem that everywhere in the world bikers are a strong community, I often thought this may be due to them (you!) having a common enemy ie."the car". When two bikers pass in France they stick two fingers out at eachother - not the V for victory Churchill sign, but two fingers held out horizontally. Do they do that is the USA? I love that about riding in France, impossible to do in the UK as it would mean taking your hand of the accelerator, it can only happen where you drive on the "right hand side" of the road. When I first drove in France I thought "What are all these people doing?" Then I got to really like it, it's like reaching out to touch one-another. We are community beings us humans, we like to form groups, I am convinced the behaviour is innate. It's self evident how this behaviour would have had bred in a species borne of natural selection too.
+++
A while ago now I replied to a UK friend who aksed me my views on Global Warming:
"I don't know whether the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, and we have contributed a lot since the industrial revolution, is causing global warming or not. More research is necessary. The trouble with the whole global warming issue is that it's deemed to be a liberal/democrat flag waving banner, so everyone with a conservative/republican bent is just looking to say it's hogwash. In addition - everywhere it seems now - minority groups have far too much power, political correctness has gone mad, and "global warming" is lumped together with these "leftists". So the debate over global warming has come down to left vs right (as usual), with a bunch of "scientists" thrown in competing for grant money.
Let's stick with the facts, the first being "we have altered the composition of the Earth's atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels". The debate should be around understanding what this alteration means to the Earth's climate, if anything, both now and in the future."
+++
My view is, if you are a scientist then you cannot hold to the non-falsifiable concept that Global Warming is all the result of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere due to the activities of humanity. You cannot hold to the non-falsifiability of anything. You have to keep an open mind about everything.
Question: is believing something to be non-falsifiable synonymous with having a closed mind about that particular topic?
+++
And, "is being inconsistent like breaking a promise?" ...
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Today's 400 Mile Ride
Set out this morning at about 8:30am and returned home about 4:30pm. 400 miles at a relatively leisurely pace:
Click here for a larger image.
Do you see that stretch on the right side of the picture where I turned south in New Mexico and proceeded down to Douglas? 100 miles of nothing ... beautiful scenery, but only one town to speak of. And no gas at all. Luckily I'd topped off my tank just before the start of that journey so I had sufficient to get to the other end of that. Still, it's an eye opener ... and lesson learned: never trust that gas will be there. If I'm about to set out across the wilderness, top up.
Click here for a larger image.
Do you see that stretch on the right side of the picture where I turned south in New Mexico and proceeded down to Douglas? 100 miles of nothing ... beautiful scenery, but only one town to speak of. And no gas at all. Luckily I'd topped off my tank just before the start of that journey so I had sufficient to get to the other end of that. Still, it's an eye opener ... and lesson learned: never trust that gas will be there. If I'm about to set out across the wilderness, top up.
Custom Bike
I bumped into this guy while out riding today:
Click here for a larger image.
His bike is a new "custom" bike. The outfit from which he purchased it takes standard parts from the market and bolts them into semi-custom frames. Here's a picture of just the bike:
Click here for a larger image.
This kind of bike really isn't my cup of tea, but this guy seemed right proud of his baby.
Click here for a larger image.
His bike is a new "custom" bike. The outfit from which he purchased it takes standard parts from the market and bolts them into semi-custom frames. Here's a picture of just the bike:
Click here for a larger image.
This kind of bike really isn't my cup of tea, but this guy seemed right proud of his baby.
A Priori
There is no point arguing with someone who believes that The Bible is a priori non-falsifiable.
That's true of anything. If someone has decided to believe something is non-falsifiable, then no amount of logical argumentation will make a difference.
Incidentally, this is where the "science" of climate change has come. Quotes like "the matter is settled ... it is now merely a question of what we do about it" float around like confetti. Of course the science is not at all settled:
That's true of anything. If someone has decided to believe something is non-falsifiable, then no amount of logical argumentation will make a difference.
Incidentally, this is where the "science" of climate change has come. Quotes like "the matter is settled ... it is now merely a question of what we do about it" float around like confetti. Of course the science is not at all settled:
- That the earth has warmed over the last century may be true enough.
- Whether the change is anything abnormal within the context of normal historical cycles is almost never discussed
- Whether the change is in fact due to human activity is a wide open question, despite "scientists" hoping desperately to make it a settled matter.
- Whether any proposed method of correction will actually do anything is an even more wide open question.
Absolutely True
And of course one may argue with the premise ... but if the discussion revolves around the validity of the premise rather than a mere refutation of the conclusion ... well, then it's a more interesting discussion.
Exactly. That's the problem I have with philosophical logic. There is nothing inherently "logical" about a fear response to danger, unless you define the axiom in the way that you did "If danger then fear, and if danger is the case then fear is the case". But that only applies to organisms that feel fear. It's a logical statement for organisms that feel fear, but an illogical statement for organsims that do not/cannot feel fear.
Logical does not necessarily equate to pure efficiency, does it?
I don't believe so.
1 + 1 = 2 is an axiom that applies to both organisms that feel and do not feel fear.
The speed of light in vacuo is a constant c and this applies to both Christians and Muslims. The Theory of Special Relativity is built upon this observation of constancy of c in vacuo.
What are the better premesis to build a logical house of cards upon? I would suggest those that apply in the majority of cases.
+++
Or "scientists" who cherry pick their data to support their agenda? Or global warming activists who fly a private jet to some function? Or a chess grandmaster who argues that a game is a draw when a third option -- me shooting him through the forehead -- is available?
The first example is being consistent to their internal set of values, the second is hypocritical, not necessarily illogical and the third, even if you kill the GM, by the rules of chess, the game is either won or drawn.
+++
There is no point arguing with someone who believes that The Bible is a priori non-falsifiable. You will always get to this .. fill in the blanks as you see fit.
(a) At first, this is difficult to understand, ....... (b) the contradiction exists in our understanding, not in the Bible, (c) the solution is simple; all you need to do is accept what the Bible says.
(a) is a patronzing ... "You are right and smart to be confused, but alas not smart enough ..
(b) You have failed to understand, but I'll say "our" not "your" understanding to make it look less harsh
(c) A little bit more patronizing (You mean you didn't get this simple solution??) Also don't be a doubting Thomas, be warned! You may be punished
These people can be as inconsistent, illogical and irrational as they wish. I believe that most of these people are not evil (>99%). I believe they do so out of love (of the Godhead) - and they don't really believe that love is subject to the logical. They may be correct, they may be misguided, life is short so be happy. (This goes to my previous post of "what if life wasn't short"? Then I might have to take up more of an issue with such folks). Unfortunately I think there have been a few throughout history using Religion for control purposes, it's a crying shame.
As you once reminded me, it depends on whether you really seek the truth or seek shelter, it would be good if we could find both together. Lennon said it:
Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Money for dope
Money for rope
Im sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mamas little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now
Ive had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Its money for dope
Money for rope
Ah, Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Exactly. That's the problem I have with philosophical logic. There is nothing inherently "logical" about a fear response to danger, unless you define the axiom in the way that you did "If danger then fear, and if danger is the case then fear is the case". But that only applies to organisms that feel fear. It's a logical statement for organisms that feel fear, but an illogical statement for organsims that do not/cannot feel fear.
Logical does not necessarily equate to pure efficiency, does it?
I don't believe so.
1 + 1 = 2 is an axiom that applies to both organisms that feel and do not feel fear.
The speed of light in vacuo is a constant c and this applies to both Christians and Muslims. The Theory of Special Relativity is built upon this observation of constancy of c in vacuo.
What are the better premesis to build a logical house of cards upon? I would suggest those that apply in the majority of cases.
+++
Or "scientists" who cherry pick their data to support their agenda? Or global warming activists who fly a private jet to some function? Or a chess grandmaster who argues that a game is a draw when a third option -- me shooting him through the forehead -- is available?
The first example is being consistent to their internal set of values, the second is hypocritical, not necessarily illogical and the third, even if you kill the GM, by the rules of chess, the game is either won or drawn.
+++
There is no point arguing with someone who believes that The Bible is a priori non-falsifiable. You will always get to this .. fill in the blanks as you see fit.
(a) At first, this is difficult to understand, ....... (b) the contradiction exists in our understanding, not in the Bible, (c) the solution is simple; all you need to do is accept what the Bible says.
(a) is a patronzing ... "You are right and smart to be confused, but alas not smart enough ..
(b) You have failed to understand, but I'll say "our" not "your" understanding to make it look less harsh
(c) A little bit more patronizing (You mean you didn't get this simple solution??) Also don't be a doubting Thomas, be warned! You may be punished
These people can be as inconsistent, illogical and irrational as they wish. I believe that most of these people are not evil (>99%). I believe they do so out of love (of the Godhead) - and they don't really believe that love is subject to the logical. They may be correct, they may be misguided, life is short so be happy. (This goes to my previous post of "what if life wasn't short"? Then I might have to take up more of an issue with such folks). Unfortunately I think there have been a few throughout history using Religion for control purposes, it's a crying shame.
As you once reminded me, it depends on whether you really seek the truth or seek shelter, it would be good if we could find both together. Lennon said it:
Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Money for dope
Money for rope
Im sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mamas little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now
Ive had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth
No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Its money for dope
Money for rope
Ah, Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Practical vs. Logical
Surely if you are going to die anyway wouldn't it be logical to use any method, however remote it's likelihood of succeeding, to save the crew?
Ah, I think I see. Spock's use of "logical" throughout that series is really more akin to some notion of what's practical, or efficient, rather than based on axiomatic construction. Spock's aversion to emotions was said to be because it was "illogical." Axiomatically there's nothing illogical about it at all:
Logical does not necessarily equate to pure efficiency, does it?
Oh in that case do you want innerant Bible believers to recognize the inconsistencies in The Bible? Would you like Lewis to give option (c) ie. to recognize that an inconsistency with his "force you down an alley of only two given options (a) and (b)" might exist?
Or "scientists" who cherry pick their data to support their agenda? Or global warming activists who fly a private jet to some function? Or a chess grandmaster who argues that a game is a draw when a third option -- me shooting him through the forehead -- is available?
I would love Bible inerrancy advocates to recognize the difficulties in the Bible. I do not believe it necessarily valid to label them inconsistencies ... if by inconsistency one really means falsehood. This website has a whole section on "difficulties" (see navigation bar on left, about one screen down). I'm nearly certain you won't be satisfied with the answers given. But I think it's a good example of someone at least acknowledging that certain passages are not blindingly obvious.
Ah, I think I see. Spock's use of "logical" throughout that series is really more akin to some notion of what's practical, or efficient, rather than based on axiomatic construction. Spock's aversion to emotions was said to be because it was "illogical." Axiomatically there's nothing illogical about it at all:
- Premise: A situation that threatens death triggers a fear response
- Condition: I am in a situation that threatens death
- Conclusion: Therefore, my reaction is a fear response
Logical does not necessarily equate to pure efficiency, does it?
Oh in that case do you want innerant Bible believers to recognize the inconsistencies in The Bible? Would you like Lewis to give option (c) ie. to recognize that an inconsistency with his "force you down an alley of only two given options (a) and (b)" might exist?
Or "scientists" who cherry pick their data to support their agenda? Or global warming activists who fly a private jet to some function? Or a chess grandmaster who argues that a game is a draw when a third option -- me shooting him through the forehead -- is available?
I would love Bible inerrancy advocates to recognize the difficulties in the Bible. I do not believe it necessarily valid to label them inconsistencies ... if by inconsistency one really means falsehood. This website has a whole section on "difficulties" (see navigation bar on left, about one screen down). I'm nearly certain you won't be satisfied with the answers given. But I think it's a good example of someone at least acknowledging that certain passages are not blindingly obvious.
Inconsistency
Help me understand what you're meaning by philosophical logic. Better yet, give me an example of Spock's use of it.
Most of the things Spock said fall into this category.
In "Shore Leave" Spock said "On my planet 'to rest' is to rest, to cease using energy. To me it is quite illogical to run up and down on green grass using energy instead of saving it."
Is the axiom that this philosophical logic based upon (to rest = cease to use energy) open to interpretation with regards to vacationing? You betcha! It's not like an AND gate or a XOR operation, which are based on axioms that are not open to interpretation.
One other that comes to mind is that episode where they were escaping off some planet and Spock had to burn off in a flare the last of the shuttle craft fuel in a desperate attempt to signal the Enterprise as to their location. After they had been saved Spock said "it was illogical to use the fuel in this manner due to the very low likelyhood that the Enterprise would see it" (or words to that effect), now what axiom is that based upon? Surely if you are going to die anyway wouldn't it be logical to use any method, however remote it's likelyhood of succeeding, to save the crew?
I guess more than anything what I want is people to employ consistency, and failing that, then at a bare minimum to recognize that inconsistency may exist.
Oh in that case do you want innerant Bible believers to recognize the inconsistencies in The Bible? Would you like Lewis to give option (c) ie. to recognize that an inconsistency with his "force you down an alley of only two given options (a) and (b)" might exist?
I'll confess I'm often inconsistent in my argumentation. It maddens me when I'm caught in it
If you answered "no" to either of the previous two questions then you've been caught in it again sir ! :) There is a third option of course, ie. decline to answer the previous two questions !
+++
Is inconsistency like breaking a promise?
Most of the things Spock said fall into this category.
In "Shore Leave" Spock said "On my planet 'to rest' is to rest, to cease using energy. To me it is quite illogical to run up and down on green grass using energy instead of saving it."
Is the axiom that this philosophical logic based upon (to rest = cease to use energy) open to interpretation with regards to vacationing? You betcha! It's not like an AND gate or a XOR operation, which are based on axioms that are not open to interpretation.
One other that comes to mind is that episode where they were escaping off some planet and Spock had to burn off in a flare the last of the shuttle craft fuel in a desperate attempt to signal the Enterprise as to their location. After they had been saved Spock said "it was illogical to use the fuel in this manner due to the very low likelyhood that the Enterprise would see it" (or words to that effect), now what axiom is that based upon? Surely if you are going to die anyway wouldn't it be logical to use any method, however remote it's likelyhood of succeeding, to save the crew?
I guess more than anything what I want is people to employ consistency, and failing that, then at a bare minimum to recognize that inconsistency may exist.
Oh in that case do you want innerant Bible believers to recognize the inconsistencies in The Bible? Would you like Lewis to give option (c) ie. to recognize that an inconsistency with his "force you down an alley of only two given options (a) and (b)" might exist?
I'll confess I'm often inconsistent in my argumentation. It maddens me when I'm caught in it
If you answered "no" to either of the previous two questions then you've been caught in it again sir ! :) There is a third option of course, ie. decline to answer the previous two questions !
+++
Is inconsistency like breaking a promise?
Friday, March 16, 2007
Argumentation and Consistency
But what is logic? Which type are we talking about here? There is formal symbolic and mathematical logic, on which modern mathematics and computers are built and then there is the woolley philosophical logic - which is what I think we are talking about here (please correct me if I am wrong).
I honestly don't know. I'm aware of the mathematical logic; less so the philosophical logic you referenced. Your comment that Mr. Spock used philosophic logic all the time threw me.
I guess more than anything what I want is people to employ consistency, and failing that, then at a bare minimum to recognize that inconsistency may exist. How much squishier can I get? But even that seems to be out of bounds. Inconsistency? Even when they're being blatant about it, they continue to flail away.
Note: I'll confess I'm often inconsistent in my argumentation. It maddens me when I'm caught in it ... I wish I was more tight with my reasoning.
We've had the discussion before about how mathematical axioms are by definition true because we assert them to be true. Whether they are or are not really doesn't matter ... for the purposes of the exercise we assume X and work from there.
Help me understand what you're meaning by philosophical logic. Better yet, give me an example of Spock's use of it.
I honestly don't know. I'm aware of the mathematical logic; less so the philosophical logic you referenced. Your comment that Mr. Spock used philosophic logic all the time threw me.
I guess more than anything what I want is people to employ consistency, and failing that, then at a bare minimum to recognize that inconsistency may exist. How much squishier can I get? But even that seems to be out of bounds. Inconsistency? Even when they're being blatant about it, they continue to flail away.
Note: I'll confess I'm often inconsistent in my argumentation. It maddens me when I'm caught in it ... I wish I was more tight with my reasoning.
We've had the discussion before about how mathematical axioms are by definition true because we assert them to be true. Whether they are or are not really doesn't matter ... for the purposes of the exercise we assume X and work from there.
Help me understand what you're meaning by philosophical logic. Better yet, give me an example of Spock's use of it.
Logical Cap'n
That made me think ... are humans naturally inclined towards logical thinking? Or is logical thinking something that must be acquired ... a trained habit of the mind?
I'm very much with you on that it's something learned, I have seen this first hand over the last nine years and a half of my daughter growing up. There is no doubt that Santa Claus can fit down a chimney and visit all of the worlds good children in one night. And of course it's also why religions desperately seek to get to us when we are children, when disbelief is suspended and our minds can be molded, we can be told.
But what is logic? Which type are we talking about here? There is formal symbolic and mathematical logic, on which modern mathematics and computers are built and then there is the woolley philosophical logic - which is what I think we are talking about here (please correct me if I am wrong).
Both are based on axioms, but what axioms are the failures you witnessed built upon? By axioms I mean "If A then B, so if A is the case then B is the case". Are you saying that the perpetrators of anti-logic were agreeing and disagreeing with the axioms at the same time? In my opinion, this is almost ok in philosophical logic ... why do I say that? Because the axioms that philosophical logic are built upon are so woolley to begin with that they lend themselves to multiple interpretations, often depending on which way the wind is blowing. But don't be trying such axiomatic bending on formal symbolic logic please !
Thinking about it, I have a lot of disdain for philosophical logic, it's often built upon a movable feast. Spock used this type of logic all the time.
I'm very much with you on that it's something learned, I have seen this first hand over the last nine years and a half of my daughter growing up. There is no doubt that Santa Claus can fit down a chimney and visit all of the worlds good children in one night. And of course it's also why religions desperately seek to get to us when we are children, when disbelief is suspended and our minds can be molded, we can be told.
But what is logic? Which type are we talking about here? There is formal symbolic and mathematical logic, on which modern mathematics and computers are built and then there is the woolley philosophical logic - which is what I think we are talking about here (please correct me if I am wrong).
Both are based on axioms, but what axioms are the failures you witnessed built upon? By axioms I mean "If A then B, so if A is the case then B is the case". Are you saying that the perpetrators of anti-logic were agreeing and disagreeing with the axioms at the same time? In my opinion, this is almost ok in philosophical logic ... why do I say that? Because the axioms that philosophical logic are built upon are so woolley to begin with that they lend themselves to multiple interpretations, often depending on which way the wind is blowing. But don't be trying such axiomatic bending on formal symbolic logic please !
Thinking about it, I have a lot of disdain for philosophical logic, it's often built upon a movable feast. Spock used this type of logic all the time.
Humans and Logic
I was listening to some news today. The politics in America are screwed up ... and I don't mean just because my preferred party is no longer in power. I mean it's screwed up because logic and common sense seem to have been cast aside. It's as if people are willfully employing inconsistent thinking.
That made me think ... are humans naturally inclined towards logical thinking? Or is logical thinking something that must be acquired ... a trained habit of the mind? I'm really beginning to think it's something that must be learned. I don't mean just the structure and terminology of logical argumentation ... I mean the intuitive recognition of the structure of a logical argument leading to a logical conclusion.
Over and over again I see people trying to employ logic to persuade someone on a point. The people agree on each premise leading up to the conclusion. Then they categorically reject every agreed-to premise when they choose to disagree with the conclusion. And it's not that they don't believe the argument leads to the conclusion ... it's that they admit they don't wish to accept the consequence of the conclusion and so therefore logic is abandoned.
That made me think ... are humans naturally inclined towards logical thinking? Or is logical thinking something that must be acquired ... a trained habit of the mind? I'm really beginning to think it's something that must be learned. I don't mean just the structure and terminology of logical argumentation ... I mean the intuitive recognition of the structure of a logical argument leading to a logical conclusion.
Over and over again I see people trying to employ logic to persuade someone on a point. The people agree on each premise leading up to the conclusion. Then they categorically reject every agreed-to premise when they choose to disagree with the conclusion. And it's not that they don't believe the argument leads to the conclusion ... it's that they admit they don't wish to accept the consequence of the conclusion and so therefore logic is abandoned.
Give and take
Which then suggests that what should do is focus on what our self interests are.
Yes I think that's correct but only up to the point where we find ourselves impacting others in a way which we would not like done back to us. In actuality though, in life we cross the line sometimes, and at the other times we let ourselves be taken advantage of. As long as there is a balance we generally don't feel hard done by. This gets back to "nash equilibria" -- ie. to achieve an optimum solution all parties have to bend a little
she is going to a conference in Salt Lake City on how to host and conduct a proper "tea."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. On man :) Sorry. Can I come to tea? So the likelyhood of you coming to visit the UK now must have at least doubled! Good on yer missus. Let me know where you get to on The Wing this weekend.
in giving up my need to have my way all the time ... (snip) Yet I resist. Fiercely. Why?
Maybe you don't need to have your own way ALL of the time? Maybe you are just looking for a nash equilibrium but everyone else is taking advantage of you? Or maybe you are just a dictator! (I don't think so)
Yes I think that's correct but only up to the point where we find ourselves impacting others in a way which we would not like done back to us. In actuality though, in life we cross the line sometimes, and at the other times we let ourselves be taken advantage of. As long as there is a balance we generally don't feel hard done by. This gets back to "nash equilibria" -- ie. to achieve an optimum solution all parties have to bend a little
she is going to a conference in Salt Lake City on how to host and conduct a proper "tea."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. On man :) Sorry. Can I come to tea? So the likelyhood of you coming to visit the UK now must have at least doubled! Good on yer missus. Let me know where you get to on The Wing this weekend.
in giving up my need to have my way all the time ... (snip) Yet I resist. Fiercely. Why?
Maybe you don't need to have your own way ALL of the time? Maybe you are just looking for a nash equilibrium but everyone else is taking advantage of you? Or maybe you are just a dictator! (I don't think so)
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Selfish Selflessness
This goes back to the secret behind altruism, does an altruistic person really satisfy some kind of urge within themselves by giving up their self interest?
I had to read that several times to let it sink in. It's almost as if the question being asked here is: "Can it be considered an indulgence in self-interest to be selfless?" That's seems like an oxymoron, but I don't think it is ... I think there's an element of truth in it. Let's say for instance someone feels very strongly that they should serve the poor, and do so utterly anonymously. Can it be said that by indulging their strong feeling they are in fact serving a self-interest? I think so.
Is that wrong? I think not.
Which gets back to what I think is your basic point -- there really isn't anything that is truly altruistic. Everyone, all the time, is serving some element of self-interest.
Which then suggests that what should do is focus on what our self interests are. If my self interest is, cruelly, to treat others as I myself would prefer not to be treated ... then I am doing bad. But if my self interest -- in the form of not hating myself for being a bad person -- is served by treating others as I would like to be treated ... then I am being a good person.
My argument is circling on itself.
I really don't have a clear head on all this. My original point about the publicity thing was really a veiled slam on people who seem to require acknowledgment. To me, the worst example of this is the name plaque on the back of a church pew. But I'm being judgmental, so I should just be quiet. :-)
* * *
My lovely bride is departing me this weekend -- she is going to a conference in Salt Lake City on how to host and conduct a proper "tea." That's right -- in the English tradition. She has become quite taken by the whole process ... the tea, the finger sandwiches, the sweets.
Her departure permits me some guilt-free motorcycle riding.
* * *
What do you see when you look at your cross?
I don't see it as something to do, per se. It's really a state of mind. I can sense where my true intent lies. The frustrating things is I know darn well that a life of curbing my tongue, of being genuinely interested in other people's bests interests, in giving up my need to have my way all the time ... I know that will be a better, less stressful life. Yet I resist. Fiercely. Why?
I had to read that several times to let it sink in. It's almost as if the question being asked here is: "Can it be considered an indulgence in self-interest to be selfless?" That's seems like an oxymoron, but I don't think it is ... I think there's an element of truth in it. Let's say for instance someone feels very strongly that they should serve the poor, and do so utterly anonymously. Can it be said that by indulging their strong feeling they are in fact serving a self-interest? I think so.
Is that wrong? I think not.
Which gets back to what I think is your basic point -- there really isn't anything that is truly altruistic. Everyone, all the time, is serving some element of self-interest.
Which then suggests that what should do is focus on what our self interests are. If my self interest is, cruelly, to treat others as I myself would prefer not to be treated ... then I am doing bad. But if my self interest -- in the form of not hating myself for being a bad person -- is served by treating others as I would like to be treated ... then I am being a good person.
My argument is circling on itself.
I really don't have a clear head on all this. My original point about the publicity thing was really a veiled slam on people who seem to require acknowledgment. To me, the worst example of this is the name plaque on the back of a church pew. But I'm being judgmental, so I should just be quiet. :-)
* * *
My lovely bride is departing me this weekend -- she is going to a conference in Salt Lake City on how to host and conduct a proper "tea." That's right -- in the English tradition. She has become quite taken by the whole process ... the tea, the finger sandwiches, the sweets.
Her departure permits me some guilt-free motorcycle riding.
* * *
What do you see when you look at your cross?
I don't see it as something to do, per se. It's really a state of mind. I can sense where my true intent lies. The frustrating things is I know darn well that a life of curbing my tongue, of being genuinely interested in other people's bests interests, in giving up my need to have my way all the time ... I know that will be a better, less stressful life. Yet I resist. Fiercely. Why?
Doing the "right" thing
Now, here's the question ... what percentage of people do so with the full intent of being relatively anonymous doing it?
What is the underlying difference in the following scenarios:
Do something good and
a) never mention it publicly, just leave it at that. Feel quietly happy that you have done something meaningful.
Compared to:
b) never mention it publicly, AND THEN feel hard done by it, say "Oh why did I have to go and do that good thing and give up my self interest?" But would do it again nontheless.
?
Person (a) is going to be a lot happier with the publicity I think. This goes back to the secret behind altruism, does an altruistic person really satisfy some kind of urge within themselves by giving up their self interest? I think so, because this would match up with them having needs borne of natural selection that they want to meet, which is a kind of selfishness, but a good one :)
I'm looking seriously at my cross ... but I've not taken it up.
What do you see when you look at your cross?
What is the underlying difference in the following scenarios:
Do something good and
a) never mention it publicly, just leave it at that. Feel quietly happy that you have done something meaningful.
Compared to:
b) never mention it publicly, AND THEN feel hard done by it, say "Oh why did I have to go and do that good thing and give up my self interest?" But would do it again nontheless.
?
Person (a) is going to be a lot happier with the publicity I think. This goes back to the secret behind altruism, does an altruistic person really satisfy some kind of urge within themselves by giving up their self interest? I think so, because this would match up with them having needs borne of natural selection that they want to meet, which is a kind of selfishness, but a good one :)
I'm looking seriously at my cross ... but I've not taken it up.
What do you see when you look at your cross?
Taking up My Cross
So perhaps "meaningfulness" is related to doing something "good" by societal standards?
Or perhaps a personal sense of meaningfulness is derived by doing something "good" by our own standard. Most people's sense of "good" will likely align with society's ... but for some it may not exactly. For example, there are some who feel it is a right and good thing to stand on a city street corner and profess the Gospel with veins popping and spittle flying. Most of society views that as a nuisance, as do I, but there's obviously some who feel compelled to do it.
But your point is a good one ... most people seek at some point to do something "good." Now, here's the question ... what percentage of people do so with the full intent of being relatively anonymous doing it? And what percentage set out to do so like the Pharisee praying at the temple? :-)
* * *
There are some charitable things people do that I admire, but I know full well I don't have the strength or courage to do myself:
Which makes me thing ... what would I do that is "good?" I honestly don't know.
* * *
To live this way is very hard though, just think of all the things you have to give up.
Which I think is the point. There's a strong theme running through the New Testament that in order to find your "true" self you have to let go of your existing self. "Taking up the cross" is a metaphor for killing the self-centered life that is natural to us and taking up the life that is not about us. I'm looking seriously at my cross ... but I've not taken it up.
Or perhaps a personal sense of meaningfulness is derived by doing something "good" by our own standard. Most people's sense of "good" will likely align with society's ... but for some it may not exactly. For example, there are some who feel it is a right and good thing to stand on a city street corner and profess the Gospel with veins popping and spittle flying. Most of society views that as a nuisance, as do I, but there's obviously some who feel compelled to do it.
But your point is a good one ... most people seek at some point to do something "good." Now, here's the question ... what percentage of people do so with the full intent of being relatively anonymous doing it? And what percentage set out to do so like the Pharisee praying at the temple? :-)
* * *
There are some charitable things people do that I admire, but I know full well I don't have the strength or courage to do myself:
- Adopt a mentally retarded child
- Care for enfeebled elderly people who are not their kin
- Work in a hospice and help people with the act of dying
Which makes me thing ... what would I do that is "good?" I honestly don't know.
* * *
To live this way is very hard though, just think of all the things you have to give up.
Which I think is the point. There's a strong theme running through the New Testament that in order to find your "true" self you have to let go of your existing self. "Taking up the cross" is a metaphor for killing the self-centered life that is natural to us and taking up the life that is not about us. I'm looking seriously at my cross ... but I've not taken it up.
Importance
I was lacking any sense of meaningfulness or significance.
I know what you mean. I once had a manager who used to say "the guy driving the school bus does a more important job than me, I'm just higher paid for doing something of almost zero importance " -- also she has since left the company :) However I think she was probably correct.
So perhaps "meaningfulness" is related to doing something "good" by societal standards? Like taking kids to school, and certainly not doing something "evil". If you recall my treatise on evil, I came to the conclusion that the only evil a person can do is when they treat others in a way that they know they would not like to be treated themselves. Every other definition of evil can be relative, but this definition is absolute to the individual doing the evil. Note: in this definition revenge is most certainly evil in most cases.
So perhaps the most meaningful life we can lead is a life where we treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated - thus denying our genetic naturally-selected heritage? This way of life would be in tune with Jesus' message to a large degree I think. If we can live this way then perhaps we pass the test? Regardless of what job we do? To live this way is very hard though, just think of all the things you have to give up.
+++
Thanks for allmusic website, it has everyone, I have spent the last two hours looking - if I have to see that Chris Rock movie commercial one more time though I'm gonna hurl !
I know what you mean. I once had a manager who used to say "the guy driving the school bus does a more important job than me, I'm just higher paid for doing something of almost zero importance " -- also she has since left the company :) However I think she was probably correct.
So perhaps "meaningfulness" is related to doing something "good" by societal standards? Like taking kids to school, and certainly not doing something "evil". If you recall my treatise on evil, I came to the conclusion that the only evil a person can do is when they treat others in a way that they know they would not like to be treated themselves. Every other definition of evil can be relative, but this definition is absolute to the individual doing the evil. Note: in this definition revenge is most certainly evil in most cases.
So perhaps the most meaningful life we can lead is a life where we treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated - thus denying our genetic naturally-selected heritage? This way of life would be in tune with Jesus' message to a large degree I think. If we can live this way then perhaps we pass the test? Regardless of what job we do? To live this way is very hard though, just think of all the things you have to give up.
+++
Thanks for allmusic website, it has everyone, I have spent the last two hours looking - if I have to see that Chris Rock movie commercial one more time though I'm gonna hurl !
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Meaning
I don't really know how to define "meaningfulness". It's certainly more than money or fame ... Hollywood people have both yet they yearn for something more -- witness all their posturing for various causes.
Legacy? Immortality? Perhaps more likely. We humans tend to go to great lengths to allow our name to live on.
A nod towards altruism? More of a stretch ... I'm convinced we're more selfish than altruistic.
Pride? I'm cynical enough to believe that's a pretty big part of it.
* * *
Significance? I'm at a loss here ... would that be a result of meaningfulness, or the other way around?
* * *
I was reminded of this today as I taught a class to a group of largely disinterested people. I honestly wondered why I should bother. And I honestly wondered if I really knew much, or if I was just posing as one who did. I was lacking any sense of meaningfulness or significance.
Legacy? Immortality? Perhaps more likely. We humans tend to go to great lengths to allow our name to live on.
A nod towards altruism? More of a stretch ... I'm convinced we're more selfish than altruistic.
Pride? I'm cynical enough to believe that's a pretty big part of it.
* * *
Significance? I'm at a loss here ... would that be a result of meaningfulness, or the other way around?
* * *
I was reminded of this today as I taught a class to a group of largely disinterested people. I honestly wondered why I should bother. And I honestly wondered if I really knew much, or if I was just posing as one who did. I was lacking any sense of meaningfulness or significance.
Better People
You need to do your part. Take your daughter to Ireland and teach her the art of appreciating the flavor of Guinness.
Funnily enough I did take K to Dublin for our summer hols 2004. She'd just turned 7. I didn't make her drink Guinness though - we stayed in a haunted castle !
I think the old Irish pub full of Guinness drinkers will be with us for at least another 100 years. St Patrick's Day this weekend they'll be busy.
+++
do you think we (humans) have some deep need to feel as if what we do is significant and meaningful?
Interesting, what do you mean by "meaningful"? Do you mean "meaningful to the individual" or something more general, ie. "meaningful to society"? Both probably? Or something else?
Either way, I guess the answer is "yes", especially when we are "young", well before we get jaded and cynical that is.
Why would we have this need? Is it something that is phenotypical (drummed into us by our parents/society) or genotypical (innate behaviour) or a combination of the two? I suspect a combination. Parents tell their children to "be good" and natural selection results in our wanting to do better than our fellow human, and if I am doing something meaningful and my fellows aren't, then I am better than them.
What's your view?
"Transition from success to significance" - our society seems to equate "success" with "financial success", something that I think is very wrong, but an inevitable result of a society created by creatures borne out of natural selection wouldn't you agree?
Who are the significant people in the world?
Funnily enough I did take K to Dublin for our summer hols 2004. She'd just turned 7. I didn't make her drink Guinness though - we stayed in a haunted castle !
I think the old Irish pub full of Guinness drinkers will be with us for at least another 100 years. St Patrick's Day this weekend they'll be busy.
+++
do you think we (humans) have some deep need to feel as if what we do is significant and meaningful?
Interesting, what do you mean by "meaningful"? Do you mean "meaningful to the individual" or something more general, ie. "meaningful to society"? Both probably? Or something else?
Either way, I guess the answer is "yes", especially when we are "young", well before we get jaded and cynical that is.
Why would we have this need? Is it something that is phenotypical (drummed into us by our parents/society) or genotypical (innate behaviour) or a combination of the two? I suspect a combination. Parents tell their children to "be good" and natural selection results in our wanting to do better than our fellow human, and if I am doing something meaningful and my fellows aren't, then I am better than them.
What's your view?
"Transition from success to significance" - our society seems to equate "success" with "financial success", something that I think is very wrong, but an inevitable result of a society created by creatures borne out of natural selection wouldn't you agree?
Who are the significant people in the world?
Acquiring Acquired Tastes
News from the Emerald Isle. Apparently the national drink of Ireland isn't doing so well in the land of green. It's the younger generation's fault. They're opting for other things. Shame on them.
You need to do your part. Take your daughter to Ireland and teach her the art of appreciating the flavor of Guinness.
* * *
Yes ... it's all a game. I wonder ... do you think we (humans) have some deep need to feel as if what we do is significant and meaningful? I wonder if the factory line workers suffer from this but one day come to accept their lot, become rather detached from their chore, and find their meaning elsewhere?
Also, I heard the phrase "Transition from success to significance" to describe people who have made their fortune in business, but who are now moving into more philanthropic endeavors. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet being two notable examples of this.
You need to do your part. Take your daughter to Ireland and teach her the art of appreciating the flavor of Guinness.
* * *
Yes ... it's all a game. I wonder ... do you think we (humans) have some deep need to feel as if what we do is significant and meaningful? I wonder if the factory line workers suffer from this but one day come to accept their lot, become rather detached from their chore, and find their meaning elsewhere?
Also, I heard the phrase "Transition from success to significance" to describe people who have made their fortune in business, but who are now moving into more philanthropic endeavors. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet being two notable examples of this.
Money-go-round
What a great ad! $1 in 1961 dollars would be what in today's dollars ... $5 maybe? $10 at the outset?
Great guess. According to this site we have the following:
What cost $1 in 1961 would cost $6.58 in 2006. Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2006 and 1961, they would cost you $1 and $0.15 respectively.
+++
One admitted his purpose for being here: "It's three days away from work."
Yep. It's all a game. I am still going through my period of "I'm only interested in doing customer related work" -- avoiding internal projects -- but then, like you, I see our customers are just playing games also. I mean, who really cares if product x,y,z is implemented on budget and on schedule at the customer? We do what we do to pay the bills.
Great guess. According to this site we have the following:
What cost $1 in 1961 would cost $6.58 in 2006. Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2006 and 1961, they would cost you $1 and $0.15 respectively.
+++
One admitted his purpose for being here: "It's three days away from work."
Yep. It's all a game. I am still going through my period of "I'm only interested in doing customer related work" -- avoiding internal projects -- but then, like you, I see our customers are just playing games also. I mean, who really cares if product x,y,z is implemented on budget and on schedule at the customer? We do what we do to pay the bills.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Classy Sharp!
What a great ad! $1 in 1961 dollars would be what in today's dollars ... $5 maybe? $10 at the outset? How cheap that must have been ... probably little more than two posts and a sheet of plastic.
* * *
My 382 miles took me 8.5 hours of wall clock time. I probably spent 1.5 hours (or more) at various breaks and such. My butt got sore towards the end ... I got fidgety. :-)
* * *
I'm teaching a class this week in California. The attendees are 1/2 people new to the product and 1/2 people who've been to every class we've taught on this subject, several times over. It's discouraging to see the same people time after time. One admitted his purpose for being here: "It's three days away from work." Wonderful.
Lord, keep me gracious. :-)
* * *
My 382 miles took me 8.5 hours of wall clock time. I probably spent 1.5 hours (or more) at various breaks and such. My butt got sore towards the end ... I got fidgety. :-)
* * *
I'm teaching a class this week in California. The attendees are 1/2 people new to the product and 1/2 people who've been to every class we've taught on this subject, several times over. It's discouraging to see the same people time after time. One admitted his purpose for being here: "It's three days away from work." Wonderful.
Lord, keep me gracious. :-)
Monday, March 12, 2007
Adds Class AND Looks Sharp
I was reading a scan of an old 1961 Tales of Suspense (issue #19 "The Green Thing") and found this advertisement - maybe such a device could help with your wind resistance on the Wing?
:)
I love the adverts in these old comics !
:)
I love the adverts in these old comics !
Long Ride
Very nice amigo. How long did it take you and how often do you stop? I used to stop every hour or so when I was riding.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Reacting With Prudence
So for me anxiety would translate into being more careful
Makes perfect sense ... and in fact that's probably a more common reaction to anxiety or stress than is an aggressive response. Acting aggressively has its own set of unknowns, whereas a cautious approach is an attempt to operate within the parameters of knowns.
* * *
No, I don't want to be like my cat. His name, by the way, is "The Fuzz." Pretty original, huh?
* * *
My ride today:
A sum total of 382 miles. Some really pretty country, too. No pictures, sorry to say.
I had a moment of anxiety, speaking off ... coming down highway 87 from the upper-most peak of red lines on that map, the road was four lanes divided through the mountains. I went into a curve with more speed than I'm comfortable with (I was probably doing close to 90 mph). I managed to navigate the curve by throttling down and countersteering. I suspect the bike had a lot more to give in terms of leaning and countersteering ... but it still created a brief moment of panic that served as a learning experience for me.
The wide open spaces in Arizona (and the whole of the western U.S. for that matter) give people the sense of needing to go very fast. 90+ mph is not uncommon. Unfortunately, I tend to think I need to keep up. So I push the bike hard. It'll do 100+ without trouble, but my skills aren't up to that, so I must be more cautious. I must operate within the parameters of my set of known skills.
Makes perfect sense ... and in fact that's probably a more common reaction to anxiety or stress than is an aggressive response. Acting aggressively has its own set of unknowns, whereas a cautious approach is an attempt to operate within the parameters of knowns.
* * *
No, I don't want to be like my cat. His name, by the way, is "The Fuzz." Pretty original, huh?
* * *
My ride today:
A sum total of 382 miles. Some really pretty country, too. No pictures, sorry to say.
I had a moment of anxiety, speaking off ... coming down highway 87 from the upper-most peak of red lines on that map, the road was four lanes divided through the mountains. I went into a curve with more speed than I'm comfortable with (I was probably doing close to 90 mph). I managed to navigate the curve by throttling down and countersteering. I suspect the bike had a lot more to give in terms of leaning and countersteering ... but it still created a brief moment of panic that served as a learning experience for me.
The wide open spaces in Arizona (and the whole of the western U.S. for that matter) give people the sense of needing to go very fast. 90+ mph is not uncommon. Unfortunately, I tend to think I need to keep up. So I push the bike hard. It'll do 100+ without trouble, but my skills aren't up to that, so I must be more cautious. I must operate within the parameters of my set of known skills.
Motivation
During a chess match when things aren't going well for you, do you experience something akin to anxiety? Does that cause you to be more creative? Perhaps be more daring in your analysis of potential options?
Yes, in fact I will play more cautiously so as to try to get a draw, I'll try to steer the game into a known drawing position where although I may be material down, it's a draw (like K vs. K+N or K vs K+Rook's pawn). So for me anxiety would translate into being more careful, but I take your point about anxiety causing us to focus on solving a problem. I suspect it's got something to do with the neurotransmitter chemical in out brains called dopamine. From the wikipedia:
+++
Nice furball asleep in the sink ! (Kath laughed) So you'd like to be your cat? :)
Yes, in fact I will play more cautiously so as to try to get a draw, I'll try to steer the game into a known drawing position where although I may be material down, it's a draw (like K vs. K+N or K vs K+Rook's pawn). So for me anxiety would translate into being more careful, but I take your point about anxiety causing us to focus on solving a problem. I suspect it's got something to do with the neurotransmitter chemical in out brains called dopamine. From the wikipedia:
Research suggests a crucial role of dopamine in reward systems and anticipation of pleasure. Dopamine may also have a role in the salience ('noticeableness') of perceived objects and events, with potentially important stimuli such as: 1) rewarding things or 2) dangerous or threatening things seeming more noticeable or important. This hypothesis argues that dopamine assists decision-making by influencing the priority, or level of desire, of such stimuli to the person concerned.
+++
Nice furball asleep in the sink ! (Kath laughed) So you'd like to be your cat? :)
Awwwww ....
My kitty ... asleep in the bathroom sink:
And asleep on the bed:
The common thread here is that the cat sleeps. Pretty much all the time. :-)
And asleep on the bed:
The common thread here is that the cat sleeps. Pretty much all the time. :-)
Friday, March 09, 2007
Worrying a Solution
Question: why do we humans get anxious about the unknown? Why do we get anxious at all?
I honestly don't know. The old adage is, "Don't worry about it until it happens," but this is small comfort for most people. One working theory of mine is that anxiety is the work of our minds to fill in blanks. And given how creative we are, we are capable of filling in those blanks with remarkable things ... often remarkably bad things. That's my problem -- I "catastrophize" myself into a frenzy.
But going back ... what "natural selection" advantage would that offer? For me, anxiety creates an enormous amount of mental problem analysis. I toss and turn and fret and think about the problem at hand a lot. But what comes from it -- after a spell -- is usually a solution. And that solution is almost always the result of anxiety and the mental out come of that anxiety.
I'll toss the ball back to you. During a chess match when things aren't going well for you, do you experience something akin to anxiety? Does that cause you to be more creative? Perhaps be more daring in your analysis of potential options?
I honestly don't know. The old adage is, "Don't worry about it until it happens," but this is small comfort for most people. One working theory of mine is that anxiety is the work of our minds to fill in blanks. And given how creative we are, we are capable of filling in those blanks with remarkable things ... often remarkably bad things. That's my problem -- I "catastrophize" myself into a frenzy.
But going back ... what "natural selection" advantage would that offer? For me, anxiety creates an enormous amount of mental problem analysis. I toss and turn and fret and think about the problem at hand a lot. But what comes from it -- after a spell -- is usually a solution. And that solution is almost always the result of anxiety and the mental out come of that anxiety.
I'll toss the ball back to you. During a chess match when things aren't going well for you, do you experience something akin to anxiety? Does that cause you to be more creative? Perhaps be more daring in your analysis of potential options?
Anxious
did you experience some relief (if that's the right word) when you came to know for certain what type of cancer you had, it's extent, and your chances?
Yes that's true. All malignant cancer is bad of course, and the first diagnosis given for mine was incorrect, "desmoplastic small round cell tumour" of which there is little hope of recovery, the docs basically said "just go home and wait to die". I was unhappy with this but resigned myself to my fate, fortunately my sister wouldn't accept this at face value and wanted a second opinion from The Royal Marsden Hospital in London. And very fortunate for me she did, as my cancer turned out to be seminoma tesicular - highly treatable. Thanks sis :) But it's true, "knowing" was better than "not knowing" - even with the initial poor diagnosis. I wonder why?
+++
Question: why do we humans get anxious about the unknown? Why do we get anxious at all? Is it because this nervous feeling leads to us to a preference to avoid the unknown - and thus have a statiscally greater chance of surviving to breed? Eg. that unkown pond over there might have a crocodile in it, let's not go swimming there. And here we are, the result of millenia of such breeding?
Yes that's true. All malignant cancer is bad of course, and the first diagnosis given for mine was incorrect, "desmoplastic small round cell tumour" of which there is little hope of recovery, the docs basically said "just go home and wait to die". I was unhappy with this but resigned myself to my fate, fortunately my sister wouldn't accept this at face value and wanted a second opinion from The Royal Marsden Hospital in London. And very fortunate for me she did, as my cancer turned out to be seminoma tesicular - highly treatable. Thanks sis :) But it's true, "knowing" was better than "not knowing" - even with the initial poor diagnosis. I wonder why?
+++
Question: why do we humans get anxious about the unknown? Why do we get anxious at all? Is it because this nervous feeling leads to us to a preference to avoid the unknown - and thus have a statiscally greater chance of surviving to breed? Eg. that unkown pond over there might have a crocodile in it, let's not go swimming there. And here we are, the result of millenia of such breeding?
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Seeking Certainty, Assurance and Security
Is the solving of a mystery somehow akin to seeking assurance?
I would think so. On balance, wouldn't you say that bad knowns are generally better than potentially bad unknowns? Draw from your own history ... did you experience some relief (if that's the right word) when you came to know for certain what type of cancer you had, it's extent, and your chances?
I'm sure someone has done some social science studies on this -- gauging the degree of anxiety caused by unknowns vs. knowns. Certainty -- even bad certainty -- is often better than the unknown. At least then we know what we're dealing with.
* * *
By the way, forget about time travel back in time. Can't be done, according to these folks.
I would think so. On balance, wouldn't you say that bad knowns are generally better than potentially bad unknowns? Draw from your own history ... did you experience some relief (if that's the right word) when you came to know for certain what type of cancer you had, it's extent, and your chances?
I'm sure someone has done some social science studies on this -- gauging the degree of anxiety caused by unknowns vs. knowns. Certainty -- even bad certainty -- is often better than the unknown. At least then we know what we're dealing with.
* * *
By the way, forget about time travel back in time. Can't be done, according to these folks.
Mystery
we have enough cognitive processing to ponder what else there is to life and what exists, if anything, after death. From that one thought spins out a great deal of human history.
Very well said. My daughter is nine and she asks about the origins of it all. I tell her no-one really knows and some of the options that people have discovered for our beginnings. She's getting to the stage where she wants "proof" of everything. Surety - being sure - how comforting that state is to our minds. In some sense does knowledge equal a better chance of survival? After all, the unknown may kill you.
And mysteries, she likes to solve them. Is the solving of a mystery somehow akin to seeking assurance?
Very well said. My daughter is nine and she asks about the origins of it all. I tell her no-one really knows and some of the options that people have discovered for our beginnings. She's getting to the stage where she wants "proof" of everything. Surety - being sure - how comforting that state is to our minds. In some sense does knowledge equal a better chance of survival? After all, the unknown may kill you.
And mysteries, she likes to solve them. Is the solving of a mystery somehow akin to seeking assurance?
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Tragedy of Human Cognition
No matter how much science can explain, it seems, the real gap that God fills is an emptiness that our big-brained mental architecture interprets as a yearning for the supernatural. The drive to satisfy that yearning, according to both adaptationists and byproduct theorists, might be an inevitable and eternal part of what some call the tragedy of human cognition.
I love that phrase "Tragedy of Human Cognition." How much of the tragedy of our human existence is due to just that -- we are aware of ourselves and our mortality, and we have enough cognitive processing to ponder what else there is to life and what exists, if anything, after death. From that one thought spins out a great deal of human history.
The concept of a "yearning for the supernatural" is something that's been written up in a lot of places, including the Book of Romans:
Something else that has been bugging me - I'm also wondering if belief in God is sensible but belief in a particular denomination is not sensible?
I think there's something to that, provided the denomination doesn't represent some enormous deviation. For instance, if person A says "God is as described in the Bible," but person B says "No, God is a three-legged fish to devours our souls in spiteful fury." Both suggest a belief in "God," but their belief structures tend to be exclusive. So, once again, I find myself tumbling back to the question of the "essential" belief elements of faith.
I do believe that denominational bickering over silly non-essential things is enormously counterproductive. I fully recognize there's great peril in defining precisely what is essential and what is non-essential.
* * *
The Election Cycle
I love that phrase "Tragedy of Human Cognition." How much of the tragedy of our human existence is due to just that -- we are aware of ourselves and our mortality, and we have enough cognitive processing to ponder what else there is to life and what exists, if anything, after death. From that one thought spins out a great deal of human history.
The concept of a "yearning for the supernatural" is something that's been written up in a lot of places, including the Book of Romans:
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20, NIV)Paul's point is that each person has a deep awareness of the existence of God, even though we might try hard to avoid Him. That "deep awareness" is the same thing as a "yearning for the supernatural". Others have described it as tied to the concept of our being "created in God's image" ... and through our sinful inclinations we've left a "hole" in our beings that yearns to be refilled with God. Again, the "yearning for the supernatural."
Something else that has been bugging me - I'm also wondering if belief in God is sensible but belief in a particular denomination is not sensible?
I think there's something to that, provided the denomination doesn't represent some enormous deviation. For instance, if person A says "God is as described in the Bible," but person B says "No, God is a three-legged fish to devours our souls in spiteful fury." Both suggest a belief in "God," but their belief structures tend to be exclusive. So, once again, I find myself tumbling back to the question of the "essential" belief elements of faith.
I do believe that denominational bickering over silly non-essential things is enormously counterproductive. I fully recognize there's great peril in defining precisely what is essential and what is non-essential.
* * *
The Election Cycle
- Republicans have as much right to retain the White House as do the Democrats have the right to assume it. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that forbids one party from monopolizing the Executive Branch. The 22nd Amendment prohibits any person from holding the office for more than two terms. That came about in 1953 as a response to Franklin Roosevelt having won four consecutive terms. It prohibits George W. Bush from running again. Were it not for the 22nd Amendment, we would have seen at least three terms of Bill Clinton, who would have easily won in 2000. Whether he could have pulled a fourth term is doubtful ... Americans have a desire to want to move on to other things.
- Watching politics is somewhat of a hobby for me. I suspect it's very much like you and chess -- both have to do with strategy and positioning. I allow myself to become too emotionally invested in it, though. I have tried to be less invested.
- I am generally conservative, and thus am generally Republican.
- When considering the pack running for president, I have little enthusiasm for any of the Democrats, though I believe Hillary Clinton would be an effective leader in a wartime setting. I believe she would be an awful executive in times of peace, where given time to tinker with the fabric of American life she would rip it asunder. Barack Obama is utterly unproven; lots of soothing words and a telegenic appearance ... but we have little sense for how he would actually govern. John Edwards is an utter phony ... a trial lawyer who made hundreds of millions of dollars for himself filing class action lawsuits against drug companies based on bad science and emotionalism. He speaks of a deep concern for the "have nots" of America, yet he's building a 28,000 square foot mansion for himself in North Carolina.
- As for the Republicans, this is going to be interesting. The Republican party has always been an unsteady coalition of several conservative branches -- social conservatives, business conservatives and libertarians. Social conservatives put great stock in what a candidate feels about key litmus issues -- abortion, gay marriage, family values. Business conservatives are about tax policy and regulation reform, but care little about peripheral issues that don't involve the creation and retention of money. Libertarians are all about being left to their own devices. "The best government is no government" is their motto, though the more sensible libertarians recognize that there needs to be a minimum level of government -- they tend to understand national defense is a critical component of minimal government. George W. Bush held this coalition together in 2000 and again in 2004. Were he to run again, he'd lose. His support among social conservatives and business conservatives has eroded.
- Of the three major Republican candidates -- Guiliani, McCain and Romney -- none has support across all three. Guiliani carries a ton of baggage on social issues (he's pro-choice); McCain is deeply distrusted by social conservatives due to his alliances with Ted Kennedy on various liberal causes; Romney is a Mormon and thus there's this question mark about whether evangelicals will support him. The fundamental question of the 2008 election is whether the "war on terror" trumps social and business issues, and thus the candidate that presents themselves as the most credible leader in a time of war may rebuild the coalition. I'm skeptical about the war on terror being the trump card ... unless we suffer another attack. Romney's Mormonism may well come to haunt him, but not because evangelicals have a real problem with him, but rather because the mainstream media has decided to take him out first as part of their plan to discredit the whole list of Republican candidates.
- As of right now, Guiliani seems to have momentum. On the Democrat's side, it's going to be a real dog fight between Obama and Clinton. And as we all know, the Clintons are able to fight dirty and effectively.
Seeds of Rebirth
Sorry my brain is jumping around at the moment - I could be losing it .. I worked on NetView 390 back in the 90's and R.O.D.M (a big part of NetView back then) was what a few of us called Hillary Clinton on account of her weird middle name and er, thus the title of my previous post.
Thanks for explaining what happens in these "primaries", so I take it then that Republicans could be allowed back in, just not with George Bush at the helm? I infer from your commentary that there is no law that says "2 terms of party x means we now need to switch to party ¬x"?
Also I sense some kind of excitement in you about these elections? Or at least a lot of interest, where does that come from in you? You actually give a damn and I want to know why :) Plus who do you want to win?
Yeah I was linking the comments you quoted about boredom in my brain like this:
1. You quoted "Mankind's nervous system evolved during millions of dangerous years" .. therefore evolution crept into my mind
2. Then you mentioned a lot of sinful stuff happens as a result of boredom
3. Then you proferred ""Idle hands are the devil's workshop?""
So it my addled state I linked avoiding boredom with being virtuous, and for some reason being virtuous with evolution.
Having made the connection I thought, "what the hey?" could there be some some survival advantage in being religious?
Immediate thoughts are that religion can make you happier and happiness can make you live longer, therefore giving you more chance to breed. Religion can offer solace to the bereaved and comfort to the frightened. I got to thinking could it be that religion evolved as a mechanism to cope with our all-too-brief span of existence?
I had read somewhere:
No matter how much science can explain, it seems, the real gap that God fills is an emptiness that our big-brained mental architecture interprets as a yearning for the supernatural. The drive to satisfy that yearning, according to both adaptationists and byproduct theorists, might be an inevitable and eternal part of what some call the tragedy of human cognition.
"Yearning for the supernatural" vs "Yearning not to be bored" got mixed up in my mind.
+++
Plus, I've long held that all issues of evolution and our mind and our beliefs and our perceptions of God are utterly irrelevant to the question of God himself. He either is, or isn't.
Of course. But God is a special case, because he falls into the category of non-falsifiable. It's like a conspiracy theory, the best conspiracy theories are those that cannot be disproved. God cannot be disproved, therefore a healthy debate can ensue.
Something else that has been bugging me - I'm also wondering if belief in God is sensible but belief in a particular denomination is not sensible? (Hmmm ... is "sensible" the right word or is "rational" a better word?) What I mean is, if one decides to believe in X, then one can look at "the real world" and try to get confirmation .. ie. do an experiment.
If you do this experiment for "belief in God" you will find that more than 50% of humanity (in the real world) believes in a "God" but less than 50% believe in any particular denomination or sect (I include Christianity and Islam in that description).
So from a non-emotional standpoint, given that the existence of God is not falsifiable, it is rational/sensible to believe in God and irrational/silly to believe in a particular sect, or something else?
Thanks for explaining what happens in these "primaries", so I take it then that Republicans could be allowed back in, just not with George Bush at the helm? I infer from your commentary that there is no law that says "2 terms of party x means we now need to switch to party ¬x"?
Also I sense some kind of excitement in you about these elections? Or at least a lot of interest, where does that come from in you? You actually give a damn and I want to know why :) Plus who do you want to win?
Yeah I was linking the comments you quoted about boredom in my brain like this:
1. You quoted "Mankind's nervous system evolved during millions of dangerous years" .. therefore evolution crept into my mind
2. Then you mentioned a lot of sinful stuff happens as a result of boredom
3. Then you proferred ""Idle hands are the devil's workshop?""
So it my addled state I linked avoiding boredom with being virtuous, and for some reason being virtuous with evolution.
Having made the connection I thought, "what the hey?" could there be some some survival advantage in being religious?
Immediate thoughts are that religion can make you happier and happiness can make you live longer, therefore giving you more chance to breed. Religion can offer solace to the bereaved and comfort to the frightened. I got to thinking could it be that religion evolved as a mechanism to cope with our all-too-brief span of existence?
I had read somewhere:
No matter how much science can explain, it seems, the real gap that God fills is an emptiness that our big-brained mental architecture interprets as a yearning for the supernatural. The drive to satisfy that yearning, according to both adaptationists and byproduct theorists, might be an inevitable and eternal part of what some call the tragedy of human cognition.
"Yearning for the supernatural" vs "Yearning not to be bored" got mixed up in my mind.
+++
Plus, I've long held that all issues of evolution and our mind and our beliefs and our perceptions of God are utterly irrelevant to the question of God himself. He either is, or isn't.
Of course. But God is a special case, because he falls into the category of non-falsifiable. It's like a conspiracy theory, the best conspiracy theories are those that cannot be disproved. God cannot be disproved, therefore a healthy debate can ensue.
Something else that has been bugging me - I'm also wondering if belief in God is sensible but belief in a particular denomination is not sensible? (Hmmm ... is "sensible" the right word or is "rational" a better word?) What I mean is, if one decides to believe in X, then one can look at "the real world" and try to get confirmation .. ie. do an experiment.
If you do this experiment for "belief in God" you will find that more than 50% of humanity (in the real world) believes in a "God" but less than 50% believe in any particular denomination or sect (I include Christianity and Islam in that description).
So from a non-emotional standpoint, given that the existence of God is not falsifiable, it is rational/sensible to believe in God and irrational/silly to believe in a particular sect, or something else?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)